Frank Küster wrote: > However, at least one important change to debconf is much younger and > only implemented since 1.4.69 (which was post-sarge), and that is the > addition of the error template. Since maintainer scripts should affix > dh_* lines with "|| true", the maintainer script will not fail. > > However, an error will usually only be displayed if something of high > urgency has happened. In this case it is usually crucial that the admin > know what has happened and how to fix the situation. With the error > message being implemented, there will probably be many cases where such > information is hard to find elsewhere. > > This has hit us (in a particular strange case, with our sid package and > woody versions of grep and debconf...) in bug #395032, but there may be > many more packages in the archive that suffer from this problem.
If your package depends on a feature that's only in a new version of debconf, you should explicitly add a dependency on that version of debconf. Ideally, it should be ORed with the version of cdebconf that provides the same feature. Although, if you leave that out, we can always go back and fix it later. For example, look at tasksel, which depends on debconf (>= 1.5.5) | cdebconf (>= 0.106) for the Choices-C feature. dh_installdebconf's misc:Depends setting is only a lowest common denominator dependency, it can't deal with all cases. > The reason why I report this as non-RC is that if a package depends on > debconf, the installed debconf will probably be upgraded and configured > before that package during dist-upgrade, which is the recommended > procedure of upgrading. Not if the package is preconfigured. -- see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
