|
Home > Archive > Debian Developers > November 2006 > Upgrading the priority of ucf
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Upgrading the priority of ucf
|
|
| Steinar H. Gunderson 2006-11-01, 7:28 pm |
| Hi,
It has recently come to my attention that nfs-utils (which is priority
standard) cannot depend on ucf, since ucf is of priority optional.
I can only see four solutions for this:
a) Ignore the problem for etch, figure out what do to afterwards.
b) Downgrade nfs-utils' priority (but I don't think this is a very good
idea).
c) Rip out the ucf dependency (possible, but far from ideal; using ucf
instead of regular conffile handling allowed me to close a few bugs,
at least one of them RC).
d) Upgrade ucf to priority standard.
I'd personally go with d); would anybody have objections to this? (Cc-ing
Manoj as the ucf maintainer, even though I'd believe he reads -devel.)
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Goswin von Brederlow 2006-11-02, 7:21 am |
| "Steinar H. Gunderson" <sgunderson@bigfoot.com> writes:
> Hi,
>
> It has recently come to my attention that nfs-utils (which is priority
> standard) cannot depend on ucf, since ucf is of priority optional.
>
> I can only see four solutions for this:
>
> a) Ignore the problem for etch, figure out what do to afterwards.
> b) Downgrade nfs-utils' priority (but I don't think this is a very good
> idea).
> c) Rip out the ucf dependency (possible, but far from ideal; using ucf
> instead of regular conffile handling allowed me to close a few bugs,
> at least one of them RC).
> d) Upgrade ucf to priority standard.
>
> I'd personally go with d); would anybody have objections to this? (Cc-ing
> Manoj as the ucf maintainer, even though I'd believe he reads -devel.)
>
> /* Steinar */
e) Test for ucf presence and emulate its behaviour if not.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Henrique de Moraes Holschuh 2006-11-02, 1:18 pm |
| On Thu, 02 Nov 2006, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> "Steinar H. Gunderson" <sgunderson@bigfoot.com> writes:
>
> e) Test for ucf presence and emulate its behaviour if not.
Don't. That's code duplication for no acceptable reason whatsoever. And
more food for hungry bugs, and hidden food at that, which is many times
worse.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Manoj Srivastava 2006-11-02, 1:18 pm |
| On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:06:21 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> said:
> "Steinar H. Gunderson" <sgunderson@bigfoot.com> writes:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> e) Test for ucf presence and emulate its behaviour if not.
This is pointless duplication of functionality. Having every
standard package with non-conffile configuration files re-invent the
wheel endlessly seems like bad systems integration design.
I posit that we do need a standard, well defined, policy
driven mechanism that packages can depend upon to provide debconf
based handling of non-conffile configuration files; if there are
deficiencies in ucf that should be pointed out, and fixed, or a
standard mechanism implemented from scratch if ucf is deemed too
buggy to fix.
ucf has a size of 55KB. I think we can easily find more than
55KB we can yank out of standard post-etch (I have my eye on some
packages already, and I am sure d-i folks have some ideas too).
manoj
--
If God had intended Man to Smoke, He would have set him on Fire.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|
|
|
|
|