Hi Pirate, [Dropping this from the letsencrypt bug, as there is nothing about letsencrypt in this e-mail.]
On 04-04-16 10:18, Pirate Praveen wrote: > On Monday 04 April 2016 01:39 PM, Axel Beckert wrote: >> And actually, I don't know why there is a dbconfig-no-thanks package >> at all. My guess is that just skipping dbcommon doesn't work and the >> file /usr/share/dbconfig-common/internal/dbc-no-thanks is required. >> Which sounds like a bug in its design. <irony> Axel, Thanks for bringing this up when I asked the question on debian-devel.¹ (see the line about: "Please speak up")</irony> No dbc-no-thanks is only needed for dependency resolving. The problem dbconfig-common was having was twofold. 1) multiple command line clients are required by dbconfig depending on which backend was needed. Depeding on all the packages providing those command line clients pulls in loads of packages that are not needed for whatever you wanted to do. Therefor, I added dbconfig-<dbtype> packages, such that you (as admin or package maintainer) can properly tell which backend you want. For admins that don't want the dbconfig-common support, dbconfig-no-thanks is the way to tell that at the system level, because 2) even though dbconfig-common handles loads of cases, there are cases where it doesn't work very well from the admin perspective. Remember, loads of database run on remote systems and the Debian dependency system doesn't support that use case at all. So I believe this is the best I could do. > You want a db to be configured for the app to work. Indeed. >> Anyway, the general idea of …-no-thanks packages still looks fishy to >> me and I surely would avoid to introduce more such packages instead of >> using Recommends — which is clearly meant for such situations. > > Paul may be able to give their rationale for using dbconfig-no-thanks See above. And to additionally add to the remark of Axel, the package maintainer should not need to have loads of code to handle the case where dbconfig is not installed while you want a db. By having the Depends on dbconfig, that can be handled internally. I invite you to join my BOF at Debconf² to discuss this in more detail. >>> I want this as depends but allow people to opt out. >>> dbconfig-no-thanks was a perfect solution >> >> It looks to me like a very hacky solution which works around the >> system and should be avoided whereever possible. Of course I am open to other options. But discussing this last year at Debconf, this was actually the only sane thing that came out over the previous implementation (which people weren't really happy with)... Paul ¹ https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2015/12/msg00044.html ² https://debconf16.debconf.org/talks/1/ (looks like you need to be logged in to see this)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Letsencrypt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/letsencrypt-devel
