Sorry about the long delay in responding. This bug report got buried under other things, and I somehow forgot about it temporarily.
This one time, at band camp, Jari Aalto said: > | > | Just a ping to see what you want to do with this. I feel that it is not > | necessary to add to debconf, as it has a sensible default for most > | systems. In the event that you are running clamd on a severely disk > | constrained system, this option can be added manually, and it will be > | preserved over upgrade. I feel that the option is satisfactorily > | explained in the man page as well. > > Yes, the behavior of 0 is explained there. The confusion arose, when > it was explicitly set. I waould have expected the manual page's > default value. Thus the question: "Why the defaul configuration uses > 0?" Because to set it to anything else will cause data loss. Any non zero setting is a poor default. Again, this has been explained, and is in the man page. I can not, as packager, be particularly concerned with the value that upstream has chosen to be the default in the absence of a config file directive. I have to think in terms of what is a sane default on first install, and then respect user changes to those defaults on upgrade. > | I am inclined towards closing, but I am not going to do so if you > | disagree. Please let me know what parts are still unclear, and maybe we > | can come to some consensus about it. If in the end we still disagree, I > | will downgrade the severity to wishlist and leave it open for a future > | maintainer to handle if they see fit. > > I took a quick look at clamav-daemon.postinst lines: > > 213 echo "#Automatically Generated by clamav-daemon postinst" > > $DEBCONFFILE > 214 echo "#To reconfigure clamd run #dpkg-reconfigure clamav-daemon" > >> $DEBC > > Would it be possible to one more comment line to this section to > shortly refer to the reasons the value is 0. That would really help > from my part in this issue. The problem is that adding commented explanations for every file option and combination will create a huge maintenance nightmare, it would seem to me. Again, I am willing to accept patches to make it happen. But, I want to caution - this should be done for all directives, or none. A partial patch will just lead to more people asking for the same thing for other directives, and a piecework approach seems wrong. If you want a heavily commented config file, choose no to debconf configuration, and take a look at the one in /usr/share/doc/clamav-base/examples/. > Other than that, I do not have expertise on how the upgrade works, or > how the confguration files are managed, so I'm unable to make better > suggestions. I am trying to be responsive to your desires. However, given that: a) debconf should not be used for options that have decent defaults b) this option has a decent default c) this option's behavior is well documented I am not sure what to do. I would like to close it outright, since I see this as a misunderstanding about the features of the debconf configuration, rather than a bug. However, if you feel strongly enough about this issue to supply a patch, let me know. I will in that case leave the bug open until the patch is merged in and uploaded. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
pgpZMeSqU1Cc5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
