On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:49:19PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> If I ever add filtering to the notes debconf allows to be displayed,
> notes that refer the user to README.Debian will be at the top of the
> list to never be displayed.
>
> Of course, I am much more likely to bow to the pressure of note
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:36:24PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> [...]
> This upstream change makes no sense from a usability standpoint; this new
> stunnel package would be pretty useless to me, and I wouldn't want to have it
> automatically installed on my systems if I were using the previous, w
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 03:24:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 02:28:33PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Yet another reasons for wanting to decouple installation and
> > > configuration is if some hardware company (such as VA^H^H Emperor
> > > Linux) wishes to ship Deb
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 02:28:33PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Yet another reasons for wanting to decouple installation and
> > configuration is if some hardware company (such as VA^H^H Emperor
> > Linux) wishes to ship Debian pre-installed on the system. In that
> > case, installation happen
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 04:21:45PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> I will upload a stunnel4 package and a stunnel with Epoch tomorrow.
Excellent decision. :) Thank you.
--
G. Branden Robinson| The key to being a Southern
Debian GNU/Linux | Baptist:
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 08:46:00AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 05:05:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The point of decoupling installation and configuration is to let the admin
> > choose which of these scenarios happen, instead of the distribution or
> > the maintaine
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 05:05:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The point of decoupling installation and configuration is to let the admin
> choose which of these scenarios happen, instead of the distribution or
> the maintainer. The first is appropriate if you're doing installs of many
> systems
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 11:06:36PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:18:33AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > On a separate but related topic, I think a much better approach would
> > be to handle configuration as a step entirely separate from the
> > install phase. Let the
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:18:33AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On a separate but related topic, I think a much better approach would
> be to handle configuration as a step entirely separate from the
> install phase. Let the install be entirely quiet, and let packages
> have intelligent defaults.
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:19:16PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Keep stunnel as a stub package depending on either stunnel3 or stunnel4,
> change the description of stunnel3 explaining the situation and urging
> users to upgrade if possible.
Yeah, he could use a debconf note for this for example.
On Friday 04 July 2003 05:59, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Yes, keep the two versions of stunnel is probably the right way to handle
> > this problem. Now the problem is that stunnel is uploaded in version 4 on
> > stunnel package. What is the correct way to reintroduce stunnel for
> > compatibility
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:18:33AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> sometimes think Eric Troan really got this part of rpm's design right
> (some 7 or 8 years ago) when he completely forbade any I/O between the
> install scripts and the user at install time.
[...]
> (And perhaps by removing this crutc
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:11:48AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > On a separate but related topic, I think a much better approach would
> > be to handle configuration as a step entirely separate from the
> > install phase. Let the install be entirely quiet, and let packages
> >
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On a separate but related topic, I think a much better approach would
> be to handle configuration as a step entirely separate from the
> install phase. Let the install be entirely quiet, and let packages
> have intelligent defaults. If the package absolutely must be
> conf
Marc Singer wrote:
> There is the related trouble that the only way to disable most
> packages is to uninstall them. Sometimes, it is desirable to
> temporarily disable a service without removing the binaries or
> changing the executability of the init.d script.
Take a look at invoke-rc.d and its
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:18:33AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On a separate but related topic, I think a much better approach would
> be to handle configuration as a step entirely separate from the
> install phase. Let the install be entirely quiet, and let packages
> have intelligent defaults.
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:49:19PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> If I ever add filtering to the notes debconf allows to be displayed,
> notes that refer the user to README.Debian will be at the top of the
> list to never be displayed.
>
> Of course, I am much more likely to bow to the pressure of n
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 02:18:10AM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> On Friday 04 July 2003 01:52, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > What do you propose ?
> > > Do you think Debian must keep old version of stunnel (3.x) for
> > > compatibility
> >
> > Given how it sounds like upstream are completely incomp
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:10:32AM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> On Thursday 03 July 2003 19:37, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> > Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> > > Secondly, to reply to every person who thinks I should have created a
> > > more "user friendly" migration who did not break backwards compatibi
On Friday 04 July 2003 01:52, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > What do you propose ?
> > Do you think Debian must keep old version of stunnel (3.x) for
> > compatibility
>
> Given how it sounds like upstream are completely incompetent and have
> decided to gratuitously break compatibility, that sounds li
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:06:26AM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> On Thursday 03 July 2003 21:36, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:17:50PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> > > First of all, I present my excuses for having started a new debate
> > > about debconf in debian-devel.
Hi
On Thursday 03 July 2003 19:37, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> > Secondly, to reply to every person who thinks I should have created a
> > more "user friendly" migration who did not break backwards compatibility.
> > My answer is that I have no time to implement command li
On Thursday 03 July 2003 21:36, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:17:50PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> > First of all, I present my excuses for having started a new debate
> > about debconf in debian-devel.
> >
> > Secondly, to reply to every person who thinks I should ha
On Thursday 03 July 2003 22:49, Joey Hess wrote:
> Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> > Finally, since there is not really a policy about when to use debconf
>
> It's a pity you ignore the express wishes of the author, and the consensus
> on this list as to their use.
I ignore nothing and nobody, I read all
Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> Finally, since there is not really a policy about when to use debconf
It's a pity you ignore the express wishes of the author, and the consensus
on this list as to their use.
> * To set up stunnel for server use, read the
>/usr/share/doc/stunnel/README.Debian file.
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:17:50PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> First of all, I present my excuses for having started a new debate
> about debconf in debian-devel.
> Secondly, to reply to every person who thinks I should have created a
> more "user friendly" migration who did not br
Jim Penny dijo [Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 06:34:53PM -0400]:
> > My original argument stands: we should not be telling our users that
> > we broke their system, because we shouldn't be breaking it in the
> > first place. In this instance, it sounds to me like a bout of
> > upstream bogosity has result
Hi Sebastian!
You wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:17:50PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> > Finally, since there is not really a policy about when to use debconf,
> > I will respect the DFSG [1] and add a debconf warning [2] in the
> > stunnel package.
>
> [...]
>
> > [1] "4. Our Prior
Hi.
Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> First of all, I present my excuses for having started a new debate
> about debconf in debian-devel.
But then, the last one didn't favor your opinion.
> Secondly, to reply to every person who thinks I should have created a
> more "user friendly" migration
Herbert Xu wrote:
> And getting hundreds of emails after a mass upgrade? No thanks.
Admin-Email
The email address Debconf should send mail to if it
needs to make sure that the admin has seen an important
note. Defa
Marc Haber wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:52:10 +1000, Herbert Xu
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I for one am sick and tired of useless Debconf messages popping up
>>during installation or being sent to me via email when I'm upgrading
>>hundreds of machines automatically.
> Just go ahead and pre-s
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:17:50PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> Finally, since there is not really a policy about when to use debconf,
> I will respect the DFSG [1] and add a debconf warning [2] in the
> stunnel package.
[...]
> [1] "4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software "
#include
* Herbert Xu [Thu, Jul 03 2003, 12:27:24PM]:
> >> I'd prefer no interaction at all during installation. I'm perfectly
> >> able to read documenation thank you very much.
> >
> > Happily, the noninteractive debconf frontend exists.
>
> And getting hundreds of emails after a mass upgrade
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 22:25:26 +0200
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Penny wrote:
> > Now, this breakage happens to be somewhat benign, in that without
> > configuration, it does not function at all. But it is also somewhat
> > difficult to test for many uses. Further, when the u
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:27:24PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 17:23, Herbert Xu wrote:
> >> I'd prefer no interaction at all during installation. I'm perfectly
> >> able to read documenation thank you very much.
> >
> > Happily, the no
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:52:10 +1000, Herbert Xu
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I for one am sick and tired of useless Debconf messages popping up
>during installation or being sent to me via email when I'm upgrading
>hundreds of machines automatically.
Just go ahead and pre-seed your debconf database
Julien LEMOINE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 July 2003 22:51, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> Julien LEMOINE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I received a bug report on stunnel package from an user [1] that
>>> complained about the fact that I didn't warning about the new
>>> /etc/default/stun
On Thursday, July 3, 2003, at 02:05 AM, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 08:53:57PM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
Joey Hess has mentioned, and I agree (see 199722), that debconf notes
should really be named (and should always be interpreted as) warnings.
Huh. I thought it was supposed to
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:24:54AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Somehow, you managed to miss the point entirely in your first line,
> *even though* you restated it later.
I don't miss the point at all.
> You have assumed that it is ok to break the user system and warn
> people about it.
> It
Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 17:23, Herbert Xu wrote:
>> I'd prefer no interaction at all during installation. I'm perfectly
>> able to read documenation thank you very much.
>
> Happily, the noninteractive debconf frontend exists.
And getting hundreds of emails af
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 08:53:57PM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
> Joey Hess has mentioned, and I agree (see 199722), that debconf notes
> should really be named (and should always be interpreted as) warnings.
Huh. I thought it was supposed to be even stricter than that; errors
only.
E.g.:
Template: x
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 06:34:53PM -0400, Jim Penny wrote:
> Because of security considerations. The configuration file is read on
> startup, and then stunnel chroots away, so that it is no longer visible.
> The command line interface leaked information, internal IP structure,
> internal ports, e
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 08:53:57PM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 14:00, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > This kind of thing would go in the hypothetical NEWS.Debian, but
> > unfortunately I haven't gotten around to implementing support for it in
> > apt-listchanges yet.
>
> Having just
On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 17:23, Herbert Xu wrote:
> I'd prefer no interaction at all during installation. I'm perfectly
> able to read documenation thank you very much.
Happily, the noninteractive debconf frontend exists.
On Wed, 2003-07-02 at 14:00, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > It does not belong in debconf. Put it in the changelog -- users who
> > want to know what's changing on their system should be looking there
> > anyway, and tools such as apt-listchanges make it easier and ever to
> > access changelog informat
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 02:34:50PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
> >
> >I for one am sick and tired of useless Debconf messages popping up
> >during installation or being sent to me via email when I'm upgrading
> >hundreds of machines automatically.
>
> Woul
Jim Penny wrote:
> Now, this breakage happens to be somewhat benign, in that without
> configuration, it does not function at all. But it is also somewhat
> difficult to test for many uses. Further, when the unconfigured
> system fails to start, the failure is completely silent. This adds
> to
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 06:25:15PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> Equally well, it's really nasty to break the user system and not warn
> them about it and there aren't many options for warning people.
> One of the things that Debian has been impressively good at is providing
> smooth upgrades that do
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 01:41:13PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> Not exactly, there is a variable ENABLED which is set to 0 at installation.
> So
> the service will not start while variable is not set to 1.
So, just set the variable to 1 if upgrading from a version earlier than
that in which y
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 06:34:53PM -0400, Jim Penny wrote:
> > > It breaks 100% of stunnel installations. The old stunnel was
> > > command line oriented, the current one is configuration file
> > > oriented. It would be very difficult to write a converter.
> > > I am going to disagree with mos
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:57:01 -0500
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 10:50:29AM -0400, Jim Penny wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:40:02 -0500 Steve Langasek
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 05:12:22PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
>
>
Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> Not exactly, there is a variable ENABLED which is set to 0 at installation.
> So
> the service will not start while variable is not set to 1.
Well the user should notice this then and look in the README.Debian and
changelog. If it's the only problem, however, it might be w
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 07:52:10PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What makes you think that a debconf note is inappropriate for this? It
> > appears to be quite a common thing to do and seems helpful.
> Just because lots of people are doing it doesn't mean t
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 10:50:29AM -0400, Jim Penny wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:40:02 -0500 Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 05:12:22PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> > > I received a bug report on stunnel package from an user [1] that
> > > complained
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
>I for one am sick and tired of useless Debconf messages popping up
>during installation or being sent to me via email when I'm upgrading
>hundreds of machines automatically.
Would you prefer the old way of STD
Mark Brown wrote:
> What makes you think that a debconf note is inappropriate for this? It
> appears to be quite a common thing to do and seems helpful.
Because it's documented and has been discussed to death on devel that debconf
neither is a registry nor system for displaying random notes. [0]
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 08:40:02PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> It does not belong in debconf. Put it in the changelog -- users who
> want to know what's changing on their system should be looking there
> anyway, and tools such as apt-listchanges make it easier and ever to
> access changelog in
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 20:40:02 -0500
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 05:12:22PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
>
> > I received a bug report on stunnel package from an user [1] that
> > complained
> > about the fact that I didn't warning about the new
> > /e
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 08:40:02PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 05:12:22PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
>
> > I received a bug report on stunnel package from an user [1] that
> > complained
> > about the fact that I didn't warning about the new /etc/default/stunnel
Hello,
On Tuesday 01 July 2003 22:51, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Julien LEMOINE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I received a bug report on stunnel package from an user [1] that
> > complained about the fact that I didn't warning about the new
> > /etc/default/stunnel file introduced in package (there
Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Since debconf is not really appreciated for this use, what is the best
>> solution ? Inform users with debconf or give them informations only in
>> changelog and README.Debian ?
>
> What makes you think that a debconf note is inappropriate for this?
On Tuesday 01 July 2003 17:12, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I received a bug report on stunnel package from an user [1] that
> complained about the fact that I didn't warning about the new
> /etc/default/stunnel file introduced in package (thereis a note in
> README.Debian and in change
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 05:12:22PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> I received a bug report on stunnel package from an user [1] that
> complained
> about the fact that I didn't warning about the new /etc/default/stunnel file
> introduced in package (thereis a note in README.Debian and in chan
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 09:17:40PM +0200, Artur R. Czechowski wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 05:12:22PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> > Since debconf is not really appreciated for this use, what is the best
> > solution ? Inform users with debconf or give them informations only in
> > change
Julien LEMOINE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I received a bug report on stunnel package from an user [1] that
> complained about the fact that I didn't warning about the new
> /etc/default/stunnel file introduced in package (thereis a note in
> README.Debian and in changelog).
> Since debconf is no
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 05:12:22PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> I received a bug report on stunnel package from an user [1] that
> complained
> about the fact that I didn't warning about the new /etc/default/stunnel file
> introduced in package (thereis a note in README.Debian and in chan
* Julien LEMOINE
> I received a bug report on stunnel package from an user [1] that
> complained about the fact that I didn't warning about the new
> /etc/default/stunnel file introduced in package (thereis a note in
> README.Debian and in changelog).
>
> Since debconf is not reall
Hello
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 05:12:22PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> Since debconf is not really appreciated for this use, what is the best
> solution ? Inform users with debconf or give them informations only in
> changelog and README.Debian ?
Important changes should be announced to us
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I received a bug report on stunnel package from an user [1] that
> complained
> about the fact that I didn't warning about the new /etc/default/stunnel file
> introduced in package (thereis a note in README.Debian and in changelog).
>
>
69 matches
Mail list logo
