Re: Migrating away from ucf without dpkg prompting
On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 20:22:45 +0100, Mark Hindley wrote: >I suppose I thought simpler handling and dropping an unnecessary dependency >was a >step forward. I would be all for doing it the other way around: First address the remaining usability and completeness issues in ucf and then happily deprecate dpkg conffile handling in favor of having ucf as the default for conffile handling. It's just _WAY_ superior, more flexible and less ugly. Having the possibility to remove conffile handling fromd dpkg proper in, let's say five releases (a decate of wall-calendar time) would also reduce the maintenance burden on the dpkg maintainers. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Re: Migrating away from ucf without dpkg prompting
Steve, Many thanks for your input on this. On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 10:52:24AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > And dropping ucf handling is certainly not required for addressing Policy > 4.1.3 compatibility, which is what you mention in the changelog. > > Why do you think it's necessary here to revert to a conffile? I didn't think it was necessary. But having addressed the 4.1.3 prohibition of AUTOSTART=0|1 in /etc/default/apt-cacher, that file was no longer being modified in the postinst. Therefore it *could* revert to being a normal conffile. I suppose I thought simpler handling and dropping an unnecessary dependency was a step forward. But I am happy to be told I am wrong ;) Thanks. Mark
Re: Migrating away from ucf without dpkg prompting
Hi Mark, On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 02:21:03PM +0100, Mark Hindley wrote: > Hello, > I am working on fixing bug #905178 which is caused by moving away from using > ucf > to manage /etc/default/apt-cacher back to handling it as a standard dpkg > conffile. > I have a working solution which avoids unnecessary prompting. This is to > remove > the ucf version of the file in the preinst unless it is modified. dpkg then > installs the new version without prompting. > Can I check that this is the correct way to address it, or should I take an > alternative approach? I would strongly discourage moving from ucf management to dpkg conffiles in the first place. That's a regression in the user experience; the inflexibilities of conffile handling are well known and interest has been expressed on debian-dpkg in integrating ucf-like options into dpkg itself. I don't see any reason why, when someone has gone to the effort of implementing ucf support for a given config file, you would ever want to revert to conffile handling instead. And dropping ucf handling is certainly not required for addressing Policy 4.1.3 compatibility, which is what you mention in the changelog. Why do you think it's necessary here to revert to a conffile? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Migrating away from ucf without dpkg prompting
Hello, I am working on fixing bug #905178 which is caused by moving away from using ucf to manage /etc/default/apt-cacher back to handling it as a standard dpkg conffile. I have a working solution which avoids unnecessary prompting. This is to remove the ucf version of the file in the preinst unless it is modified. dpkg then installs the new version without prompting. Can I check that this is the correct way to address it, or should I take an alternative approach? Many thanks. Mark
