Re: (proposed) Mass bug filing for debconf "abuse" by using low|medium priority debconf notes?

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:23:31 +0200, Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Quoting Frans Pop ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>> On Monday 18 September 2006 16:36, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> > Frankly, the kernel's "You NEED to restart your computer SOON"
>> > message is a good example, if it's telling the truth.  But that
>> > cheats by not using debconf.
>> 
>> Oh yes it does!  When have you last done a kernel upgrade in
>> testing/unstable? ;-)

> But, this is currently not (yet) translatable... Manoj tried to work
> on this but the i18n was breaking something, IIRC, and he had to
> revert the change. At least, this is where I left in that story.

Well, Steve had mentioned something about being able to have
 templated templates, or something, so that one would not have had to
 preprocess the templates.master.in to create templates.master, but I
 don't recall how that went.

> (not speaking about theahem...wording of these templates)

Bright, chatty , personal, freindly as opposed to dull,
 distant, cold, robotic? 

manoj
-- 
Inflowing thoughts come to an end in those who are ever alert of mind,
training themselves night and day, and ever intent on nirvana. 226
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: (proposed) Mass bug filing for debconf "abuse" by using low|medium priority debconf notes?

[Nathanael Nerode]

Frans Pop wrote:

> On Monday 18 September 2006 16:36, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Frankly, the kernel's "You NEED to restart your computer SOON" message
>> is a good example, if it's telling the truth.  But that cheats by not
>> using debconf.
> 
> Oh yes it does!
> When have you last done a kernel upgrade in testing/unstable? ;-)

Not recently enough, I guess!  I thought I did it a few weeks ago (in
testing).  Well, that's cool! :-)

-- 
Nathanael Nerode  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...

Re: (proposed) Mass bug filing for debconf "abuse" by using low|medium priority debconf notes?

[Frans Pop]

On Monday 18 September 2006 16:36, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Frankly, the kernel's "You NEED to restart your computer SOON" message
> is a good example, if it's telling the truth.  But that cheats by not
> using debconf.

Oh yes it does!
When have you last done a kernel upgrade in testing/unstable? ;-)


pgp89qPM3iRQy.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: (proposed) Mass bug filing for debconf "abuse" by using low|medium priority debconf notes?

[Nathanael Nerode]

Joey Hess wrote:

> Christian Perrier wrote:
>> In short, a note should only be used for IMPORTANT stuff, so actually
>> all debconf notes should be priority highor should not exist!
> 
> It's better to simply remove them all: If it's an error, use the new
> error data type, which will always be displayed no matter the priority.
> If it's not an error, put it in NEWS.Debian, README.Debian, etc.
> 
> The only thing stopping me from making debconf notes a no-op is the note
> in d-i's nobootloader, which is a fairly legitimate note (not error), that
> can't really be put anywhere else, and possibly the partman help note
> (though noone reads that note).

Hmm.  Any time a package has to tell the user "You need to do something
manually.  It's not being done automatically because we haven't figured out
how to do that, but it's really really important to do it manually"
-- then a high-priority debconf note is appropriate.

Frankly, the kernel's "You NEED to restart your computer SOON" message is
a good example, if it's telling the truth.  But that cheats by not using 
debconf.

Upgrades which require programs to be restarted should do it automatically.
But if for some obscure reason they can't, then a high-priority note is
reasonable.

Upgrades from really-messed-up versions may also require people to do
something manually to clean up from the messed-up version.

-- 
Nathanael Nerode  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...

Re: (proposed) Mass bug filing?for debconf "abuse" by using low|medium priority debconf notes?

[maximilian attems]

> Debian logcheck Team 
>  logcheck-database -- config:17 logcheck-database/standard-rename-note

removed in svn, will disappear on next upload.

> Debian logcheck Team 
>  logcheck -- config:14 logcheck/install-note
>  logcheck -- config:17 logcheck/changes

first gone, second added retroactively to NEWS.

-- 
maks


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: (proposed) Mass bug filing for debconf "abuse" by using low|medium priority debconf notes?

[Josselin Mouette]

Le jeudi 14 septembre 2006 à 19:41 +0200, Christian Perrier a écrit :
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>   gtk2-engines-spherecrystal -- config:22 
> gtk2-engines/restart_gtk_apps_for_svg

This note appears to warn the user that he has to restart applications,
and only when the script is *sure* that there are applications to
restart. I think it is harmless, but given that it will never appear to
someone doing the default install, it is also useless now. Maybe it's
worth removing.
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

Re: (proposed) Mass bug filing?for debconf "abuse" by using low|medium priority debconf notes?

[Christian Perrier]

> For the packages warning about device files the reason is likely to be
> policy section 10.6 "Device files" which requires notification to the
> user when creating device files and suggests using a low priority
> Debconf message to do this:
> 
> |  If a package needs any special device files that are not included in
> |  the base system, it must call `MAKEDEV' in the `postinst' script,
> |  after notifying the user[1].
> 
> ...
> 
> | [1]  This notification could be done via a (low-priority) debconf message,
> |  or an echo (printf) statement.


OK, thanks for your very valuable input.

I (and none of the other proponents of this action) wasn't aware of
that policy requirement/suggestion).

So, we will probably leave this aside right now, unless Thomas finds a
way to exclude packages which use low priority debconf notes for that
purpose.

If we still file bugs for your packages which use low priority debconf
notes for that specific reason, I suggest that you mark them
"wontfix" until we check whether the policy can be fixed about this
specific problem. This probably needs some investigation in order to
see whether the requirement is still valid or not.

The i18n task force will certainly track this issue down with a
metabug attached to the soon to be created (assuming we get
ftpmaster's agreement) debian-i18n pseudo-package. So, even if tagged
wontfix, these bugs will not be forgotten.






signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: (proposed) Mass bug filing?for debconf "abuse" by using low|medium priority debconf notes?

[Mark Brown]

On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 07:41:53PM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:

> As a conclusion and combining both, I would really like to unsderstand
> why so many fellow developers insist on using LOW priority NOTES in
> their debconf templates and use them in maintainer scripts.

Speaking for my own packages it's a combination of policy requirements
to warn about device files and straight translations of pre-Debconf
maintainer scripts.  At a guess the latter reason (plus new notes added
before NEWS.Debian was introduced) is the most common.  Previously the
general style for Debian was fairly chatty maintainer scripts.

For the packages warning about device files the reason is likely to be
policy section 10.6 "Device files" which requires notification to the
user when creating device files and suggests using a low priority
Debconf message to do this:

|  If a package needs any special device files that are not included in
|  the base system, it must call `MAKEDEV' in the `postinst' script,
|  after notifying the user[1].

...

| [1]  This notification could be done via a (low-priority) debconf message,
|  or an echo (printf) statement.

A note seems to be the only way for Debconf using packages to comply
with this: they aren't allowed to output except via Debconf and that
seems the most appropriate template type.

It'd probably be worth getting policy updated here.

-- 
"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]