On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 19:31:57 +0100, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> On 27/01/2013 19:03, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 18:54:12 +0100, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> >
> >> diff -Nru varnish-3.0.2/debian/varnish.postinst
> >> varnish-3.0.2/debian/varnish.postinst
> >> --- varnish-3.0.2/debian/varnish.postinst 2012-05-01 16:22:42.000000000
> >> +0200
> >> +++ varnish-3.0.2/debian/varnish.postinst 2013-01-27 18:12:45.000000000
> >> +0100
> >> @@ -52,7 +52,12 @@
> >> # varnish version 2.1.3-1 and older started varnishd at boot, we keep
> >> # this default for upgrading clients
> >> upgrade_enable_varnishd() {
> >> - sed -i '/^START=/s/no/yes/g' /etc/default/varnish
> >> + tmpFile=$(tempfile)
> >> + sed '/^START=/s/no/yes/g' /etc/default/varnish > "${tmpFile}"
> >> + if which ucf >/dev/null; then
> >> + ucf --debconf-ok "${tmpFile}" /etc/default/varnish
> >> + fi
> >> + rm -f "${tmpFile}"
> >> }
> >>
> >> case ${1:-} in
> >
> > That's horrible. varnish doesn't use ucf so far, there should be a better
> > way
> > to go about that.
>
> Oh i was trying to fix the existing code, not remove it - which would
> be a much better solution, along with a simple advice in NEWS.Debian, perhaps.
>
> I'm curious why ucf is horrible, though.
>
ucf itself isn't. Using it on a conffile, OTOH...Cheers, Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
