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

Re: Question for all candidates: Care of Core infrastructure

Marc Haber wrote:
>   - dpkg still uses normal console prompting for dpkg-conffile
>     handling, while debconf has been mandatory for regular packages for
>     years now.

Dpkg has more active development now than it has for much of the
past fifteen years. And they've even talked some about implementing
debconf conffile prompting and fixing other much worse dpkg/debconf
integration points. That's fairly minor compared to developing saner
source package formats, really.

One could complain that debconf itself is not being as well maintained
as it might be. One of its two maintainers avoided having anything to do
with Debian for a full year recently. Especially the transition to using
cdebconf has been stalled far too long, on some bugs that are documented
and should be a straightforward matter of coding to fix.

>   - The concept of "all services are immediately started after
>     configuration" and "deleting all stop/start links will cause the
>     package's defaults to be re-established on the next package update"
>     is meeting a lot of resistance in the user base lately. Many people
>     use this as explanation why Debian is totally out of the question in
>     a professional environment for them.

Is there some reason that these professional environments cannot deploy
a 2 line policy-rc.d? Perhaps someone should make a no-auto-start-daemon
package that contains it?

I have seen a lot of users run into the update-rc.d link issue, but
never seen any perceive it as anything more than a minor gotcha that you
learn the workaround for.

see shy jo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: