[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

dpkg: an option not to run postinst scripts? / group Debian installs



Does dpkg have option(s) that can be specified so that it does not run
postinst scripts *and* does not replace any files (WITHOUT bothering to
ask the user)?

I'm trying to come up with a way to manage groups of Debian machines
without having to manually log into each one.  Here's one way I think it
could be done without too much modification to the existing packaging
scheme:

1. have one master machine on which dselect is used to select packages.
2. dselect then generates the list of packages that need to be installed
   *in the right order* (based on dependencies) on all other machines.
   Basically, this would be like running dpkg --get-selections on 
   the master and dpkg --set-selections on the other machines, except that
   the files need to be listed based on dependencies. [Wishlist item for
   dselect?].  
3. dpkg is then run in batch mode on the other machines with the
   appropriate options so that when it installs a package, it does not 
   require user input (ie: always say no to whether an existing config
   file should be overwritten, and never run postinst scripts so that the
   user is never prompted to answer questions).  [Wishlist item for dpkg
   to have such options?].
4. Configuation files set on the master machine are then pushed to the 
   other machines via a mechanism such as rdist or cfengine.

The only problematic part might be with X configuration if all the
machines use different X servers due to hardware differences.  This part
has to be configured on a individual basis, but should be okay if the
steps above don't overwrite the setup.

The only part that is really crucial and not implemented as far as I know
is step 3, for dpkg to run in batch mode and not ask me if it can replace
existing config files for that package.  With this, you can get around
step 2 by loading the libraries and base files first and iterating
a couple of times.

Comments anyone?



Reply to: