On Sun, Feb 22 2009, Jörg Sommer wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@debian.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 21 2009, Jörg Sommer wrote:
>>>
>>> Right, but when I hook into apt-get, I can get the configuration file
>>> shipped with the packages. But that has nothing to do with ucf.
>>
>> What does "hook into apt-get" mean?
>
> I use the hooks Pre-Install-Pkgs and Post-Invoke as provided by apt-get.
>> What happens if I do a dpkg -i?
>
> Nothing. You have to update the branches by hand.
And yet you are proposing to divert ucf? I think this is a
show-stopper.
>> Also, there might be nothing shipped with the package. You can't
>> "hook into apt-get" to get the file generated in the postinst -- since
>> there might not _be_ a upstream version at all until the postinst is
>> run.
> You can with the Post-Invoke hook.
What will you get about the newly created file in the
post-invoke hook? By the time the post-invoke hook is called, the
file might be long gone -- and since ucf is being told to ignore the
new file, you have lost it.
>> I will consider adding a conflicts to the ucf package as well.
>
> Are you contented, when I disable the wrapper and add an option so the
> user can enable the wrapper if he likes or leave it if he dislikes?
If you are going to divert ucf, I'll add a conflicts.
If the end usr disables or diverts ucf locally, that is their
problem, we give the users flexibility to shoot themselves in the
foot. Please add a note that the wrapper is not supported by ucf,and
if they isntall the wrapper, all bugs about it will be
ignored/redirected to etckeeper.
manoj
--
Dead? No excuse for laying off work.
Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
