On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote: > Oh, ok. What I meant was for a Debian system to be exactly in the same > state before and after installing+removing+purging e.g. sympa.
I understand. >>> You could ask at install time something like "Ignore module >>> auto-disabling?", and (ah, another benefit of debconf!) mark the question as >>> being of low severity to only bother users wanting to be bothered. >> >> That doesn't solve anything, a normal user wouldn't see the question. > > It solves the issue of your package collecting cruft of other packages' > install routines because they cannot revert during purge: Normal users would > not see the question, while providing an opt-in for careful users. So normal users don't see any additional questions? That's good. >> "lighty-enable-mod ..." seems to be the minimal amount of code/data. A >> Debconf approach wouldn't use less data, would it? > > Above is an introduction. Doesn't make sense to discuss that out of its > context below. I'm not sure I follow. >> I understand, but IMO that may/should involve improving Debconf if >> necessary. > > Sure. Improvements won't hurt. > > And while waiting for improvements to debconf to occur, the larger packaging > ecosystem will benefit from adding custom debconf code, I believe. It's not rocket science. I don't see why you'd waste time on a work around when you could be spending time on the solution. > >>> I could offer my help generally with maintaining it - but notice that you >>> are a little team already. Besides I favor other packaging tools (CDBS and >> >> Eh, what team? :p > > The package lists 3 uploaders. Ah. Except Eloy I haven't heard from the others in a long while. >>> git-buildpackage) which I imagine you wouldn't want to adopt just to get >>> me involved. >> >> Why would a change be necessary before you can get involved? > > Instead of debating that, let's try the opposite: > > Would you be interested in teaming up with me in maintaining lighttpd for > Debian? > > Due to my personal streamlining (I am involved in 140+ packages), I require > all packages that I am involved in to use CDBS and git-buildpackage. Seems a bit silly to require others to use the tools you prefer just because that's easier for you. > I am happy to educate you in using those tools. But don't expect to > convince me to use SVN or dh (a.k.a. short-form debhelper - I happily use > debhelper, but wrapped with CDBS instead of letting it take over the whole > rules file). > > Is that of any interest? I assume you'd like to work on the Debconf related part? Olaf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
