On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 19:33:21 -0400,
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
As was explained in detail, in order to do anything useful with
that information, it is necessary to be able to show the user the
proposed changes to the configuration file. It is completely
unhelpful to say:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 02:45:32AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hmm. ucf does show the user the changes, and even offers to
merge maintainer changes into the current configuration file.
What functionality do you think ucf is missing?
In my first message, I listed bullet
On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 12:22:31 -0400,
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 02:45:32AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hmm. ucf does show the user the changes, and even offers to merge
maintainer changes into the current configuration file.
What functionality do
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 12:59:27PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 12:22:31 -0400,
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
In my first message, I listed bullet points for goals, most of
which ucf meets, and then outlined the problems with this model,
and linked to
ucf still has the same fundamental problem with regard to preconfiguration,
which was the primary issue that I raised in my original message. The
consensus, as I recall, was that preconfiguration is important, and that
prompting in postinst should be minimized.
I may have missed something
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 09:48:48PM +0300, Jarno Elonen wrote:
ucf still has the same fundamental problem with regard to
preconfiguration, which was the primary issue that I raised in my
original message. The consensus, as I recall, was that preconfiguration
is important, and that
On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 21:48:48 +0300, Jarno Elonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
ucf still has the same fundamental problem with regard to
preconfiguration, which was the primary issue that I raised in my
original message. The consensus, as I recall, was that
preconfiguration is important, and that
I may have missed something but why can't the changed/merged
configuration files be saved somewhere in preinstall phase
[...]
Again: see my first message and followups for a specific, concrete example
of why this won't work.
Thanks, I read the thread. So the reason was that configuration
I may have missed something but why can't the changed/merged
configuration files be saved somewhere in preinstall phase and the
[...]
Well, for configuration files that require the unpacked
package to generate, you can't ask during preconfiguration. For files
created using non
On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 23:49:50 +0300, Jarno Elonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Thanks, I read the thread. So the reason was that configuration file
generation is mostly done in postinst scripts? I didn't quite get
why it couldn't in practically all cases be done in preinst (or even
a completely
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 02:07:04PM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote:
Personally I use the ask-about-overwrite question in debconf because the
last time this thread came up the only sensible solution was put forward
in the attached email. Now, I'm all for a better solution when it is
determined what
* Matt Zimmerman
There was a more recent discussion about the same idea. A summary of the
goals:
- Don't try to parse every program's configuration file format
- Notice that a non-conffile, autogenerated configuration file has been
modified by the user, and don't lose their
On Sat, 2003-04-19 at 15:41, Tore Anderson wrote:
cat _eof /usr/share/fnord/managed-conffiles/fnord.cf
/var
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 09:41:58PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
Hey, you just described how how ucf can be used.
I am aware of ucf. I described some things that ucf does, and some things
that it does not.
Lo and behold! We've just achieved your goals, using tools already in
the
* Matt Zimmerman
Did you read my sample configuration scenario (xserver-xfree86),
or the threads that I referenced? They explain in more detail.
I did, and I can't see why ucf can't be done for this purpose,
too;
As I said, I am suggesting we mimick the conffile mechanism. conffiles
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 01:05:18AM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
As far as I know, ucf is created exactly for this purpose; to mimic
dpkg's conffile handing. I assume you want to know if the configuration
file is unmodified prior to asking all the debconf questions, and making
use of
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 03:14:34PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
- Provide 3-way merge functionality to incorporate changes without losing
modifications in the common case (I hear this is coming for conffiles as
well)
Great!
Actually what I would like (and is similar in ways to the above)
* Matt Zimmerman
As was explained in detail, in order to do anything useful with that
information, it is necessary to be able to show the user the proposed
changes to the configuration file. It is completely unhelpful to say:
You have modified this configuration file, and it has also
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 02:20:00AM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
* Matt Zimmerman
As was explained in detail, in order to do anything useful with that
information, it is necessary to be able to show the user the proposed
changes to the configuration file. It is completely unhelpful to
* Tore Anderson
I see your problem when you insist on asking on asking all questions
at the configure stage -- personally, I don't think delaying the actual
generating of the configuration file (and asking the question about
overwriting the old file) to the postinst stage is *that*
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 04:11:29AM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
I fully agree that as many questions as possible should be asked before
unpacking the package. And I also agree it would better if the replace
the configuration file questions also came at that point of the
upgrade, but
21 matches
Mail list logo
