Re: Should debian policy require to use debconf for postinst scripts?
On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, VALETTE Eric wrote: I have been discussing quite a lot on different debian mailing list on a way to automate debian installation. The final and almost unfiform answer was to use debconf in non-interactive mode. The technical reason is that due to use of tty the following command does not work : dpkg -i pakace EOF input1 input2 EOF ... So far the following packages do not follow the rule : 1) lilo, 2) wu-ftpd, 3) php4-* pacakges, 4) bind 5) exim (our default MTA) ... So could the debian policy regarding package postinst script ask either to use debconf for automatic install or at least provide a mean to user to answer question asked by postinst script to be entered via scripts or files but no typing required. Thanks for any comment and sorry if that has already been discussed. I will support a proposal that every interaction with the user a package makes with the user during installation must be done using debconf. But this is a post-woody thing. cu Adrian -- Get my GPG key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] | gpg --import Fingerprint: B29C E71E FE19 6755 5C8A 84D4 99FC EA98 4F12 B400
Re: Should debian policy require to use debconf for postinst scripts?
Adrian Bunk wrote: So could the debian policy regarding package postinst script ask either to use debconf for automatic install or at least provide a mean to user to answer question asked by postinst script to be entered via scripts or files but no typing required. Thanks for any comment and sorry if that has already been discussed. I will support a proposal that every interaction with the user a package makes with the user during installation must be done using debconf. But this is a post-woody thing. Sure. I already reduced quite a lot needed keyboard inputs using debconf in non-interactive mode. Thanks for responding. Have a nice day, -- __ / ` Eric Valette - Canon CRF /-- __ o _. Product Dev. Group Software Team Leader (___, / (_(_(__ Rue de la touche lambert 35517 Cesson-Sevigne Cedex FRANCE Tel: +33 (0)2 99 87 68 91 Fax: +33 (0)2 99 84 11 30 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.crf.canon.fr
Re: Should debian policy require to use debconf for postinst scripts?
Hrm, meant to send this to the lists. Oops. On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 10:28:36AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, VALETTE Eric wrote: So far the following packages do not follow the rule : 1) lilo, 2) wu-ftpd, 3) php4-* pacakges, 4) bind 5) exim (our default MTA) I will support a proposal that every interaction with the user a package makes with the user during installation must be done using debconf. But this is a post-woody thing. If debconf isn't good enough that everyone's not using it voluntarily (lilo has been converted *from* debconf), then the obvious thing to do is to improve debconf, not try to force everyone to make their packages worse. Joey has yet more significant debconf changes waiting in the wings for after woody's release iirc, too. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it. C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who can't deal with deconstructionist humor. Code Blue. -- Mike Hoye, see http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt
Re: Should debian policy require to use debconf for postinst scripts?
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Anthony Towns wrote: ... If debconf isn't good enough that everyone's not using it voluntarily (lilo has been converted *from* debconf), then the obvious thing to do is to improve debconf, not try to force everyone to make their packages worse. ... Which of these cases is true? 1. debconf misses functionality needed 2. bugs in debconf 3. it's some work to use debconf The only important thing is 1. 2. isn't really an issue because Joey Hess is really quick with fixing bugs. It's some work for a maintainer to convert a package that simply uses things like cat EOM for interaction with the user to debconf - and if the maintainer is for any reason not willing to convert his package (he might even refuse a patch) the only way to force him to make this change is when policy says he has to do it. Cheers, aj cu Adrian -- Get my GPG key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] | gpg --import Fingerprint: B29C E71E FE19 6755 5C8A 84D4 99FC EA98 4F12 B400
Re: Should debian policy require to use debconf for postinst scripts?
* Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] [011206 03:29]: I will support a proposal that every interaction with the user a package makes with the user during installation must be done using debconf. But this is a post-woody thing. I also am willing to fight and scream for something like this post-woody. -- Scott Dier [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ringworld.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] So I ran up to him, and the exchange went something like this: Me: Oh my god! You're Larry Niven! Him: Oh my god! You're Wil Wheaton! -Wil Wheaton, in a Slashdot interview
Re: Should debian policy require to use debconf for postinst scripts?
Anthony Towns wrote: If debconf isn't good enough that everyone's not using it voluntarily (lilo has been converted *from* debconf), then the obvious thing to do is to improve debconf, not try to force everyone to make their packages worse. IIRC, the problem with lilo and debconf had little to do with debconf per se and was mainly that the new lilo configurator was very ambitious and broke a lot of systems. Joey has yet more significant debconf changes waiting in the wings for after woody's release iirc, too. Only better integration with dpkg and maybe a sql database driver some day. And perhaps sometime making it communicate with scripts via something other than stdio. -- see shy jo
Re: Should debian policy require to use debconf for postinst scripts?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adrian Bunk) writes: So far the following packages do not follow the rule : 4) bind For what it's worth, yesterday's upload of bind 8.2.5 eliminated the one remaining guaranteed pause for interaction on install, so it's no longer a problem. The bind9 packages have worked this way from day one. The bind package may still present warnings on upgrades, but should be completely silent on initial installs now. Bdale
Re: Should debian policy require to use debconf for postinst scripts?
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 04:35:17PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Anthony Towns wrote: If debconf isn't good enough that everyone's not using it voluntarily (lilo has been converted *from* debconf), then the obvious thing to do is to improve debconf, not try to force everyone to make their packages worse. Which of these cases is true? 1. debconf misses functionality needed 2. bugs in debconf Consider, eg, #90676. It's some work for a maintainer to convert a package that simply uses things like cat EOM for interaction with the user to debconf - and if the maintainer is for any reason not willing to convert his package (he might even refuse a patch) the only way to force him to make this change is when policy says he has to do it. That is *completely* the wrong attitude. We're all volunteers; we're not here to be forced to do anything. Cheers, aj, wondering if he's going to have to do the must rant yet again -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it. C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who can't deal with deconstructionist humor. Code Blue. -- Mike Hoye, see http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt pgp5MwLlYDShq.pgp Description: PGP signature
