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

Bug#388118: marked as done (xserver-xorg: please use ucf instead of an own config-tracker)

Your message dated Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:19:55 +0100
with message-id <20091128161955.GA8493@patate.is-a-geek.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#388118: xserver-xorg: please use ucf instead of an own config-tracker
has caused the Debian Bug report #388118,
regarding xserver-xorg: please use ucf instead of an own config-tracker
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
388118: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=388118
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: xserver-xorg
Version: 1:7.0.23
Severity: wishlist

Hello,

when you are currently working on the package-configuration-scripts
anyways it would probably a good time to suggest the use of ucf instead
of your own config-modification-tracker. ucf does the same, i.e. you
feed it with a dynamically generated conffile, it checks if the current
conffile has been modified manually and installs the new version if not.
However, it does also offer many things like the original dpkg-conffile
handling, like presenting the user 3-way diffs, let them choose a
version, things like that. So it's probably more convenient for both
sides: for you because your scripts get smaller, for the users because
they get more comfortable and more debian-like conflict-handling.


Thanks for your work & regards
   Mario
-- 
There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who
understand binary, and those who don't...

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 18:16:06 -0400, David Nusinow wrote:

> While this is a good option given what we have, I believe the proper fix is
> to provide the server with good defaults and detection code (much of which
> is already present but needs to be evaluated and tweaked to our needs) and
> go without a config file except for what the user actually wants to modify.
> This is planned for post-etch, but until we get that up and running I'll
> leave this report open, since our config handling does suck.
> 
We don't create an xorg.conf anymore, so closing this one.

Cheers,
Julien

--- End Message ---
Reply to: