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

Bug#80347: PROPOSED] allow/document use of Debian Configuration management system (debconf)



On Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 03:26:50PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:

In general, this seems sensible. A minor quibble:

> --- tmp/policy.text	Fri Dec 22 14:05:33 2000
> +++ policy.text	Fri Dec 22 14:05:24 2000
> @@ -618,12 +618,47 @@
> +2.3.9. Prompting in maintainer scripts
> +--------------------------------------
> +     Package maintainer scripts may prompt the user if necessary. Prompting
> +     may be accomplished by hand, or by communicating with a program, 
> +     such as debconf, which conforms to the Debian Configuration management 
> +     specification, version 2 or higher. (As defined in the file
> +     <some filename> in the debian-policy package.)
> +
> +     Packages which use the Debian Configuration management
> +     specification may contain an additional `config' script and a 
> +     `templates' file in their control archive. The `config' script may
> +     be run before the preinst, and before the package is unpacked or any of
> +     its dependancies or pre-dependancies are satisfied, so it must work
> +     using only the tools present in the base system.
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^

...which might be uninstalled whenever the user might wish. The "required"
packages are a better match, although that priority seems a bit flakey
too, and possibly limiting to "essential" packages is more sensible
(although IMAO this is what "required" should mean exactly).

What does this mean about the postinst interface to debconf? Will it
now stay as a crufty hack forever (or at least the crufty hacks will stay
for backwards compatability), or...?

Probably packages that use debconf would be well server by having
a Pre-Depends: on something like debconf-2.2 so they can rely on
a particular version of the protocol being available, however it's
implemented (debconf, cdebconf), and so that we can phase early, crufty
protocol versions out, if only by moving them to a debconf-compat package
in extra somewhere, or similar.

Apart from the above, seconded.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

     ``Thanks to all avid pokers out there''
                       -- linux.conf.au, 17-20 January 2001

Attachment: pgpsDcMXmuVa1.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: