Re: Re: [devel] Debconf or not debconf [Jim Penny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 10:50:29AM -0400, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > It breaks 100% of stunnel installations. The old stunnel was command > line oriented, the current one is configuration file oriented. It would > be very difficult to write a converter.
Well, it broke my installation. I read the -devel thread over the last days, and even then I thought "It won't concern me as I'm using stunnel from /etc/inetd.conf instead of a stand-alone service". In the end, I could no longer fetch mail via imaps after upgrading to the current Sarge version of stunnel. I think the main point about Debian is to provide a smooth upgrade of packages, and in this case, a debconf note about "you will have to write a stunnel configuration file" would have been *much* nicer than just breaking the program. One has to tune his system anyway after the upgrade, so I would have been very glad had Debian told me what to do. (Which is just one "Enter" press more for those who already know.) On the other hand, not changing the interface is even nicer. But if upstream decides to change it, there are probably good reasons to follow that. And yes, I read the README.Debian, the manpage etc. But a debconf note would have sped things up further. Christoph -- Christoph Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, http://www.df7cb.de Wohnheim D, 2405, Universität des Saarlandes, 0681/9657944
pgpN9v0vmmPmV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
