On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
the dpkg's force-confmiss option, given as commandline parameter, or
as an config option, has no effect when configuration file is
maintained by ucf. that requires users to dig about the reason their
config file is missing.
The ucf supports UCF_FORCE_CONFFMISS environment variable that
instruct it to recreate config file.
Please, when user sets this opsion, set the UCF_FORCE_CONFFMISS
variable prior to running external programs/scripts, so dpkg will
pass the option to ucf.
On 29.03.12 10:51, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
This would a layer violation. dpkg should not have to care about UCF.
What could be done is for dpkg to export its command line options
in a new environment variable DPKG_CMDLINE_OPTS, and then ucf could
inspect that new variable and verify if --force-confmiss is there.
what if someone puts the option to dpkg config file?
In the end, as long as ucf is external to dpkg, you can't really expect
to have UCF-generated config files handled like dpkg conffiles. So I'm not
convinced that finding a solution to this specific problem is important
given the other differences that will continue to remain.
what I want it to have single way to reenable package's config file...
not something (force-confmiss) that everyone describes and documents,
but someone other (ucf) simply ignores. This may be a UCF problem, but
in this case also dpkg should announce what user requires.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
10 GOTO 10 : REM (C) Bill Gates 1998, All Rights Reserved!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
