On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote: >>> So what I would like was for packages that enable a module to be able to >>> disable that module again on package removal iff no other packages(!) depend >>> on that module being enabled. >> >> Hmm, I'm not sure. > > You are not sure I want that, or?
I think the user shouldn't be bothered with questions about whether a module should be disabled. > Why do you keep talking about distribution freeze/release? I am not (except > in trying to clarify how I believe you are mixing things). I'm trying to tell you that the lighttpd.conf update might not be in the next upload depending on whether that upload is targeted at Squeeze. >>> Debconf interface would allow a subdistro (a.k.a. a Debian Pure Blend) or >>> a large deployment to "remote-control" the install of lighttpd itself when >>> it is not a package needing a module but some other use. >> >> Why are normal scripts not usable in that case? > > Because normal scripts require being invoked _after_ installation, whereas > debconf preseeding is injected as "metaconfig hints" to the install process > itself. Wouldn't it be better to add hooks for normal scripts to the install process? >> Yeah, that failure isn't nice. >> But again I think Debconf is not the right way to do this kind of >> configuration, it requires (too much) custom code (I think). > > How much actual experience do you have with Debconf? None, actually. As a developer. Olaf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
