* Faidon Liambotis <parav...@debian.org> [2009-01-14 17:13-0500]: > Thom May wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Faidon Liambotis <parav...@debian.org> > > wrote: > >> Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > >> Sometimes people just install a package to read documentation/the > >> manpages/read the code etc. > >> > >> It should either need manual work for the init script to start (i.e. > >> disable autostart) or have a sensible default for the loop delay.
A lot of people prefer the initscript to start on boot by default, so changing this is going to run resistance from both sides. Otherwise, I guess 'sensible default' for the loop delay is the point of argument here? > > I don't think that we should be assuming that case, or defaulting to it. > > It's a reasonable assumption that most people installing something like > > puppet > > are intending to use it, and that should be the case that works out of the > > box. > > I don't think a debconf question is unreasonable, but I definitely > > don't think that's > > something we should be thinking about (or need) in the lenny timescale. > Basically, with your latest upload, you have changed the behavior over > two defaults: > > a) The upstream default of "waitforcert", from 120s to 5s I think we may be arguing over each other here. Nobody is saying that these changes shouldn't return. Its simply not something that is going to be accepted by the release team for Lenny. > b) The Debian default in the versions so far which tried /once/ and then > exited without looping *at all*. That was what puppet <= 0.24 did > with "-w 0" and that's what the documentation still (incorrectly) > says. Doyou have a reference, or a commitsh where this changed? I suspect it was done inadvertantly by myself. > You are /changing/ the status quo, especially wrt the etch package. > I'm fine with you doing it as the maintainer and even if I don't agree > with your choice I don't intend to go very far with my disagreement. > > But please, don't act as if this was the behavior of the package all > along or as if I'm saying something totally unreasonable. I think that the prickly nature of how you have portrayed this has made your concerns seem confrontational, rather than constructive. At least from my outside perspective catching up on all of this from being gone. I think that your concerns are valid and should be addressed, its just that nobody thinks that these are valid release exception issues. > Anyway, I think we can live for now until a proper debconf prompt is > made, even if it's not a real question but just used for preseeding. > "wishlist" is a bit of an understatement though, IMHO. A debconf prompt for how long the loop delay should be? This seems like an unnecessary use of debconf IMHO, but perhaps I misunderstand this piece. > 1: When Debian defaulted to "-w 0" and that meant something totally > different that is. I'm puzzled by this and do not understand. micah
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
