[resent due to bounce]
On 2018-07-26 11:58, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> On 2018-07-26 11:19, Daniel Baumann wrote:
>> On 07/26/2018 10:39 AM, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
>>> Shipping it as a conffile *and* managing it with debconf/ucf/... at the
>>> same time is a violation, since dpkg will prompt for a modified conffile
>>> once you ship a modified version of the conffile.
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand (please bear with me), let's find out where my
>> misunderstanding is..
>>
>> ..as far as I understand there are only three cases:
>>
>> 1) install the package, accept the debconf default
>>
>> -> conffile shipps already with default value,
>> no modification happens, everything is fine.
>>
>> no problem, right?
>
> This is the case tested by piuparts (using DEBIAN_FRONTEND=noninteractive).
>
> But the conffile gets modified (debsums reports modifications).
> Otherwise I^Wpiuparts wouldn't have noticed.
>
>> 2) user changes something else in conffile manually
>>
>> -> dpkg will ask as expected what to do because
>> the conffile was modified compared to what
>> was shipped.
>>
>> no problem, right?
>
> Correct.
>
>> 3) install (or dpkg-reconfigure) the package, answer
>> the debconf question with (non-default) 'no'
>>
>> -> conffile gets changed
>>
>> when you upgrade the package, dpkg will behave
>> as expected as the conffile got modified
>> (just like you had it manually modified).
>>
>> no problem, right?
>
> This is wrong. Unneccessary prompting. (Unless you added e.g. a new
> debconf question, but then a dpkg prompt is still wrong.)
>
> If you used ucf, this would be handled gracefully without prompting.
>
>>> Try adding a comment
>>> to the file you ship, rebuild the package, install it, ouch.
>>
>> just to be sure i get it: are you talking about the initial installation
>> of such a modified package, or the update from the 'normal' to the
>> 'modifled' one?
>
> update from current (accepting the default answer) to modified
>
>
> Andreas
>
