-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 20-06-2005 18:20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> it would only be possible to use debconf values in violation of 10.7.4 > if the package is in violation by using debconf values to improperly > edit "conffiles", as 10.7.4 has nothing to do with debconf values. > > if the package properly uses debconf values (only on "configuration > files" not marked as "conffiles", with provided tools to edit the > "configuration files"), it would be compliant with 10.7.4, as i read > it.. Then read again. First two paragraphs of 10.7.4 relates to conffiles only, but the rest is generally about configuration files. I made same point in bug#311888: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=311188&msg=63 This (earlier) comment by Steve Langasek was not challenged by the rest of the release team, so I assume they agree on that same interpretation: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=311188&msg=9 For those not interested in reading the bugreport, current status is that the package is considered too little used for the release team to want to bother taking it out of sarge but yes, debian-edu-config is violating policy in a release-candidate way. >>I agree that for a future Debian we should seek more flexible >>configfile handling, but for current Debian that is not an option >>(because changing the world takes time so *is* future). > > > some of us need to work with the current stable debian release to > maintain sanity, and some imperfect workarounds are necessary until the > issue can be resolved, no? Yes. > i don't see the point of dragging this out without proposals about how > to fix it, as the workarounds are at least a temporary necessity. I am not sure what is your point here. I want a long term solution to this. But I suspect it takes time, as I suspect the long term solution requires a lot of maintainers agreeing to enhance their packages to be "remote-controlled", and possibly some policy rules needs to be thought out about when it is acceptable to (ab)use those remote-controls through maintainer scripts of other packages (directly or indirectly as is the case in bug#31188). So I want to work on shorter term fix as well, in case Debian Etch is released before the world had changed drastically enough for our chosen approach to no longer be release-critical. Besides, if we are smart, our temporary hack is designed to help ease the long term solution! With this I mean reusable hacks[1] instead of isolated complex workarounds. - Jonas [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-custom/2005/05/msg00019.html - -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ - Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCtycVn7DbMsAkQLgRAlH7AKCA5cbetlCDqXfDAuL/fkdv71G3vQCdHu/l WDr6HU6P4f1PsEHzzP2Fn0M= =N+ZW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
