On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 23:49:50 +0300, Jarno Elonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Thanks, I read the thread. So the reason was that configuration file
> generation is mostly done in postinst scripts? I didn't quite get
> why it couldn't in practically all cases be done in preinst (or even
> a complete
> > I may have missed something but why can't the changed/merged
> > configuration files be saved somewhere in preinstall phase and the
> > [...]
>
> Well, for configuration files that require the unpacked
> package to generate, you can't ask during preconfiguration. For files
> created usi
> > I may have missed something but why can't the changed/merged
> > configuration files be saved somewhere in preinstall phase
> > [...]
>
> Again: see my first message and followups for a specific, concrete example
> of why this won't work.
Thanks, I read the thread. So the reason was that confi
On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 21:48:48 +0300, Jarno Elonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> ucf still has the same fundamental problem with regard to
>> preconfiguration, which was the primary issue that I raised in my
>> original message. The consensus, as I recall, was that
>> preconfiguration is important,
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 09:48:48PM +0300, Jarno Elonen wrote:
> > ucf still has the same fundamental problem with regard to
> > preconfiguration, which was the primary issue that I raised in my
> > original message. The consensus, as I recall, was that preconfiguration
> > is important, and that
> ucf still has the same fundamental problem with regard to preconfiguration,
> which was the primary issue that I raised in my original message. The
> consensus, as I recall, was that preconfiguration is important, and that
> prompting in postinst should be minimized.
I may have missed something
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 12:59:27PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 12:22:31 -0400,
> > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > In my first message, I listed bullet points for goals, most of
> > which ucf meets, and then outlined the problems with this model,
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 12:22:31 -0400,
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 02:45:32AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Hmm. ucf does show the user the changes, and even offers to merge
>> maintainer changes into the current configuration file.
>>
>> W
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 02:45:32AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hmm. ucf does show the user the changes, and even offers to
> merge maintainer changes into the current configuration file.
>
> What functionality do you think ucf is missing?
In my first message, I listed bullet po
>> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 19:33:21 -0400,
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> As was explained in detail, in order to do anything useful with
> that information, it is necessary to be able to show the user the
> proposed changes to the configuration file. It is completely
> unhelpful
On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 15:14:34 -0400, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>- Notice that a non-conffile, autogenerated configuration file has been
> modified by the user, and don't lose their changes
>
>- Use debconf for prompting
That combination prompts a question: Why does dpkg not use deb
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 04:11:29AM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
> I fully agree that as many questions as possible should be asked before
> unpacking the package. And I also agree it would better if the "replace
> the configuration file" questions also came at that point of the
> upgrade,
* Tore Anderson
>> I see your problem when you insist on asking on asking all questions
>> at the configure stage -- personally, I don't think delaying the actual
>> generating of the configuration file (and asking the question about
>> overwriting the old file) to the postinst stage is *t
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 02:20:00AM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Matt Zimmerman
>
> > As was explained in detail, in order to do anything useful with that
> > information, it is necessary to be able to show the user the proposed
> > changes to the configuration file. It is completely unhelp
* Matt Zimmerman
> As was explained in detail, in order to do anything useful with that
> information, it is necessary to be able to show the user the proposed
> changes to the configuration file. It is completely unhelpful to say:
>
> "You have modified this configuration file, and it has a
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 03:14:34PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> - Provide 3-way merge functionality to incorporate changes without losing
> modifications in the common case (I hear this is coming for conffiles as
> well)
Great!
Actually what I would like (and is similar in ways to the above
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 01:05:18AM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
> As far as I know, ucf is created exactly for this purpose; to mimic
> dpkg's conffile handing. I assume you want to know if the configuration
> file is unmodified prior to asking all the debconf questions, and making
> use o
* Matt Zimmerman
> Did you read my sample configuration scenario (xserver-xfree86),
> or the threads that I referenced? They explain in more detail.
I did, and I can't see why ucf can't be done for this purpose,
too;
> As I said, I am suggesting we mimick the conffile mechanism. conffile
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 09:41:58PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
> Hey, you just described how how ucf can be used.
I am aware of ucf. I described some things that ucf does, and some things
that it does not.
> Lo and behold! We've just achieved your goals, using tools already in
> the arch
On Sat, 2003-04-19 at 15:41, Tore Anderson wrote:
> cat << _eof > /usr/share/fnord/managed-conffiles/fnord.cf
/var
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
* Matt Zimmerman
> There was a more recent discussion about the same idea. A summary of the
> goals:
>
> - Don't try to parse every program's configuration file format
>
> - Notice that a non-conffile, autogenerated configuration file has been
> modified by the user, and don't lose their
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 02:07:04PM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote:
> Personally I use the ask-about-overwrite question in debconf because the
> last time this thread came up the only sensible solution was put forward
> in the attached email. Now, I'm all for a better solution when it is
> determined what
22 matches
Mail list logo
