On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 10:48:52AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 09:56:51AM -0800, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
And is the overwhelming majority of interactive scripts that _do_ use
debconf already not a huge enough amount?
No, it's not current practice to use debconf when a
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 12:16:15PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
- a package has it's documentation in /usr/doc
- the maintainer gets a patch how to change it
- the maintainer refuses the patch I want to have the documentation in
/usr/doc.
- a
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 08:57:26AM +, Mark Brown wrote:
And is the overwhelming majority of interactive scripts that _do_ use
debconf already not a huge enough amount?
No, it's not current practice to use debconf when a bunch of important
packages specifically don't use it.
Which
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
...
aj, who'll be proposing the MUST/SHOULD nonsense be removed from the hands
of policy when he gets some free time again
Let's play the evil maintainer game:
I play the evil maintainer who does everything with his packages that
isn't forbidden.
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 10:54:41AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Massimo Dal Zotto wrote:
The lack of automatic installation is the reason why I don't install
Debian any more for my customers.
Oh, and to
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 11:19:42AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
aj, who'll be proposing the MUST/SHOULD nonsense be removed from the hands
of policy when he gets some free time again
I play the evil maintainer who does everything with his packages
On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 10:48:52AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 09:56:51AM -0800, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
And is the overwhelming majority of interactive scripts that _do_ use
debconf already not a huge enough amount?
No,
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 12:19:23AM -0500, John R. Daily wrote:
Possible reasons for mandating policy: insuring interoperability,
consistency, functionality, and desire to be a fascist jerk.
Why assume the latter when the first three are valid, and
valuable to boot?
Because the first three
On Sat, 8 Dec 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
...
If you want every package to use debconf, that's fine and wonderful. Go
make a list of the ones that don't, write patches so that they will, file
bugs so the maintainer knows about them, then have a friendly discussion
with the maintainers to make
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 12:16:15PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
- a package has it's documentation in /usr/doc
- the maintainer gets a patch how to change it
- the maintainer refuses the patch I want to have the documentation in
/usr/doc.
- a package doesn't use debconf for interaction with
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 09:22:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
And thanks to this stupid MUST thing in policy everyone's wasting their
time trying to figure out how to force people to do things, instead of
making sure that there's absolutely no reason why they wouldn't want to.
Trouble is,
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 01:02:25PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 09:22:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
And thanks to this stupid MUST thing in policy everyone's wasting their
time trying to figure out how to force people to do things, instead of
making sure that there's
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 11:41:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Sure there's something you can do: forward it on to -devel, try to make
sure it's clear what (if anything) the maintainer and you think the issues
are, and try to come to some sort of consensus about what should be done.
Of
On Monday, December 10, 2001 9:46 AM, Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course. Thing is that that's an awful lot of hassle and rather
offputting so people still want that big stick that would save them
grinding through it for stuff that really ought to be obvious.
Do you not agree that
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 07:10:54AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you not agree that because of the reasons already identified, particularly:
* debconf is still relatively young
I'm talking about the general trend towards people wanting to put
everything sensible in policy irrespective of
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at Monday, December 10, 2001 10:33 AM, Mark Brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Do you not agree that because of the reasons already identified,
particularly:
* debconf is still relatively young
I'm talking about the general trend towards people wanting to put
everything
aj You don't need an excuse to not mandate something, you need a damn
aj good reason to mandate, and a huge amount of current practice to
aj support it.
Is the reason given by OP not damn good enough?
And is the overwhelming majority of interactive scripts that _do_ use
debconf already not a
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 09:22:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
And thanks to this stupid MUST thing in policy everyone's wasting their
time trying to figure out how to force people to do things, instead of
making sure that there's absolutely no
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 09:56:51AM -0800, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
aj You don't need an excuse to not mandate something, you need a damn
aj good reason to mandate, and a huge amount of current practice to
aj support it.
Is the reason given by OP not damn good enough?
No, not really. When we can
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 02:46:17PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 11:41:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Sure there's something you can do: forward it on to -devel, try to make
sure it's clear what (if anything) the maintainer and you think the issues
are, and try to come
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Massimo Dal Zotto wrote:
In my opinion now that we have debconf we should mandate its use by
policy.
No. We. Should. Not.
We will be guided by the needs of our users and the
free-software community. We will place their interests first in
our
And Yay! Woo! I get to do this stupid rant, yet again.
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 11:28:51PM -0500, John R. Daily wrote:
We will be guided by the needs of our users and the
free-software community. We will place their interests first in
our priorities. We will support the needs of our users for
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, John R. Daily wrote:
Possible reasons for mandating policy: insuring interoperability,
consistency, functionality, and desire to be a fascist jerk.
1) insuring interoperability
If a package doesn't work with the interface another package provides, it's
still a bug.
Anthony == Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Anthony Consider, eg, #90676.
What is the problem here?
If a program tries to read an input from STDIN, then IMHO it is not
debconf compliant, as you will still have problems with automatic
installations.
This is just one bug I have
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
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 04:35:17PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
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
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
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 12:19:51AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
To pseudo-quote Anthony Towns on this one: policy is not a stick to
hit lazy maintainers with.
Oh, come now. *Anything* can be a stick to hit lazy maintainers with.
Just so long as they get beaten.
--
G. Branden Robinson
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
Massimo Dal Zotto [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wrote an automatic installer (which worked) for slink, but I had to
spend weeks to adapt the postinst scripts of debian packages to it,
and I didn't want to repeat all the work for potato and woody.
This was my experience, too.
In my opinion now
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Massimo Dal Zotto wrote:
In my opinion now that we have debconf we should mandate its use by
policy.
No. We. Should. Not.
If you want every package to use debconf, that's fine and wonderful. Go
make a list of the ones that don't, write patches so that
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
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
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
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
* 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.
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
[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
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
39 matches
Mail list logo
