-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
Hi,
Am Do den 11. Feb 2010 um 21:12 schrieb John Goerzen:
> Klaus Ethgen wrote:
> > Well, I was updating from version 3.xxx to the new version. As the 2.4
> > version is pretty old I think there are many people out there using the
> > 3.x version in production.
> >
> > Additional, the debconf message just gives the options to create the
> > database or to _not_ create it. There is no option to choose if you want
> > to upgrade or not.
>
> That is not what my code and testing reveal.
>
> First I will be asked the dbconfig-install template, which says:
>
> Description: Configure database for ${pkg} with dbconfig-common?
> The ${pkg} package must have a database installed and configured before
> it can be used. This can be optionally handled with
> dbconfig-common.
> .
> If you are an advanced database administrator and know that you want
> to perform this configuration manually, or if your database has already
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> been installed and configured, you should refuse this option. Details
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> on what
> needs to be done should most likely be provided in /usr/share/doc/${pkg}.
> .
> Otherwise, you should probably choose this option.
So this option says that you can create the database or you have to not
choose this option; like I told it in my mail.
> If you answer yes to that, then you will see
>
> dbconfig-common/dbconfig-upgrade
> Type: boolean
> Default: true
> Description: Perform upgrade on database for ${pkg} with dbconfig-common?
[...]
I never ever see that configuration option at all!
> > When you choose not to create the database (cause you know it is
> > existing and you don't want to destroy it) then the daemon will not
>
> Saying that you want dbconfig-common to manage the database doesn't mean
> that dbconfig-common will destroy it, for sure!
That's how I read them.
> > By the way, the dbconfig-common package seems to be in a very bad state
> > as ucf throws a big warning about using it the wrong way. However, that
> > is only about the later created config file and it still works, that is
> > only a warning.
>
> dbconfig-common fixed that in 1.8.43, uploaded a couple of weeks ago.
Ah, ok. Like I said I use a mostly stable system.
> > As I told above, I think there are many people out there still using the
> > version 3.x. Another reason is that upstream dropped support for the 2.x
> > version long ago and forced users to use the 3.x version. Additional if
> > I read correct the upstream only official support update from 3.x to
> > 5.0. No earlier versions are supported.
>
> That's not correct; there are update scripts going back years and years
> still shipped with the 5.0 tarball.
Right. I saw them too. But the web site only "support" the update from
3.x to 5.x.
> Like I said, I see no reason why an upgrade from 3.x should fail, as I
> have put in to the code the features needed to make it work.
And there is the point. I never ever get to this point where I could
choose the option to update.
> But it will never wind up in a Debian stable release.
That's clear.
Regards
Klaus
- --
Klaus Ethgen http://www.ethgen.de/
pub 2048R/D1A4EDE5 2000-02-26 Klaus Ethgen <[email protected]>
Fingerprint: D7 67 71 C4 99 A6 D4 FE EA 40 30 57 3C 88 26 2B
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iQEVAwUBS3RzAZ+OKpjRpO3lAQreSAf+MIFNLdSTrQ3O+hrywGiMbWrGpIqfW4vU
TqIi8MuCWH4sFhkH3WKy43WOrzKQTF1YFwiIwfPTZ5/tMghr9kGXY+Bh87XIed2H
AbV1Tnuxubp04O6Gydpuyw+AMwW3ot7EjpNqY1/HSJIyCOT7jfqb+EasfZE++cOW
9vb8zhYt1HIIv9YNBpNCHoWKuQLqXF5ci8OXFLUTTiFJwrvg1TERelBDlqJfeM40
Q/xc7AO1euW1MFl2Ge66nMQUsPByH2pVrKAxm1IwaZXB9wnYeuiRadS4pDCgclCn
OrTU/48tDBN+lQuyFMLjGVepAlH55Wx0yxMXr2FYF/ynlI7/v4dmAw==
=S4a9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
