Paul Slootman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed 05 Apr 2006, Frank Küster wrote: >> Paul Slootman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > If you enter a value via the debconf dialog that indicates that wwwoffle >> > should regularly fetch its list, then why remove the cron.d entry... >> >> Because debconf is not a registry. It's a frontend for maintainer >> scripts to interact with local admins, but the actuall *settings* are >> stored in /etc/. > > I'm talking about the case where you just entered a value, > interactively.
But I may have changed my mind, and i shouldn't be forced to use debconf then. No, I *mustn't* be forced. > As I said above: I'm talking about the case where you just entered a > value, interactively. Say, the configuration is parsed (the cron.d file > is missing, so debconf is seeded with "never"), the user changes that to > every 30 minutes, hence expects that from that moment on wwwoffle will > fetch its list every 30 minutes. However, you demand that the postinst > should never recreate the cron.d file, as the user removed it. No, I don't demand that. I only demand that the postinst script not create the file unconditionally. If a debconf question is seeded with "no", asked or not, and the postinst script acts according to the answer, everything is fine. >> This case can easily be distinguished because, like a postinst, config >> gets a second parameter which is the version number of the >> last-configured (i.e. the currently installed) package. If it's a fresh >> install, $2 is empty. > > No, it's freshly installed, but the user runs dpkg-reconfigure because > he wants to turn on the fetch feature, which he didn't turn on during > the initial install; that's the situation I meant to demonstrate; sorry > if that wasn't clear. So, where's the problem? He's asked the question, changes from "no" to "yes" and a specific value, and the change is done - or he doesn't change, either because he doesn't want to, or he doesn't see the questions, and no change is done. >> I'd offer to write a patch if you don't want to, or don't have time to >> dig into this. > > If you could take into account all possible situations... then please. > Note that I am in the process of packaging 2.9, and the maintainer > script will be changed a lot (I'm taking out support for upgrading from > before woody, which will simplify things and which should be more than > enough). Is the new maintainer script available somewhere? Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
