-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 20-06-2005 10:13, Andreas Schuldei wrote: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 01:04:09AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > >>I believe the local admin (or the CDD tool behaving as if it was the >>local adming - in violation of Debian Policy 10.7.4) can't blame the >>packaging system if changing conffiles into something else than files. > > > I think we come closer to the core of the problem when looking at > the *packaging system* as the problem. In it's present form it is > not fit to deal with upgrading conffiles or config files, while > it should be.
With "should" as a future tense, right? So you agree that current config handling is not "broken" as Petter claimed, but too limited for our new goal of wanting our system non-interactively upgradeable? There is a lot of things you shouldn't do today on a Debian system if you want the packaging system to work well with you. I believe one of them is that you should keep config files as _files_. Do you agree or do you not agree? Then, after we've figured out what is broken in Debian as of today(!), we can move on to discuss how we want fundamental changes. The reason I find it important to separate those two issues, is that the first one relates to "me fixing my wrong assumptions about how the world works" while the other relates to "the world should change because I want it to work with something I invented for it". Needless to say, the latter is the hardest to "fix". Non-interactive upgrade is new to Debian. It sure is benificial for the users, but it is new, and not yet working. The separation of "local admin" and "packaging scripts" is old, and well defined (oh, apart from surprises and disagreements about clarifications done as part of the Sarge relelease policy). The separation of "local admin", "packaging scripts" and "packaging scripts that see themselves as implicitly initiated by the local admin even if in fact it is done by the packaging scripts through debconf" is new. Current Debian does *not* handle that separation and considers it a violation of Debian Policy section 10.7.4. I agree that for a future Debian we should seek more flexible configfile handling, but for current Debian that is not an option (because changing the world takes time so *is* future). > If you want any pice of software (except for your shopping > wizzard) to buy you software that is your problem. Chocolate, Andreas. Marabou with whole nuts. That's only software if stored too hot :-) > If you have > feature expectations towards a pice of software, especially a > debian package, to behave user friendly and easily managable that > is entirely ok. - From a visionary point of view, yes (and I wholeheartedly agree with you). - From a practical point of view, however: File bugs against Debian Policy if you believe they violate our social contract! > dont think just because you got used to the dpkg question about > your old conffiles that is a good solution. (c: I never said that. I just corrected Petters claim that it was "broken". - Jonas - -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ - Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCtrWUn7DbMsAkQLgRAmJuAKCRNBRyOoGWDSuBgA5/zzxsVgP1jQCgg6/P 886dtb5S5cTk0lbSj3ug2VY= =YtSC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
