Le jeudi 17 décembre 2009 20:48:50, Neil Williams a écrit :
> DH_NO_ACT still needs debian/rules to be modified or else all debhelper
> routines would be disabled; we need an option that is specific to
> dh_config_model without having to edit debian/rules.
>
> I think DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS is still us
Le jeudi 17 décembre 2009 16:41:03, Carl Fürstenberg a écrit :
> Will there be premade modules for the usual suspects? for example
> Apache, INI, perl-hash, JSON, basic shell source, debcontrol/rfc-2822,
> xml etc...
There's already a generic parser and writer for perl-hash (more accurately
perl
Le jeudi 17 décembre 2009 15:38:00, James Vega a écrit :
> '[[' for testing is a bashism. This should be
>
> if [ -e /usr/bin/perl ]
>
> or more accurately
>
> if [ -x /usr/bin/perl ]
Done. Thanks
Dominique
--
http://config-model.wiki.sourceforge.net/ -o- http://search.cpan.org/~ddumont/
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:24:48 +0100
Dominique Dumont wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 December 2009 17:40:55 Neil Williams wrote:
> > No. The package should simply exit cleanly with a successful return
> > value if perl does not exist, letting everything else proceed as
> > before. The postinst itself nee
Will there be premade modules for the usual suspects? for example
Apache, INI, perl-hash, JSON, basic shell source, debcontrol/rfc-2822,
xml etc... Or is it meant that each package should reinvent the
wheel/copy-paste?
Also I think there should be a "simple mode", there the model is only
defined fo
On Thursday 17 December 2009 14:24:48 Dominique Dumont wrote:
> Unless somebeody complains, I will add this at the beginning of
> dh_config_model_upgrade:
>
> if ($ENV{DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS} =~ /noconfigmodel/) {
> warn "dh_config_model_upgrade: DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS specifies
> 'noconfigmodel',
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 8:24 AM, Dominique Dumont
wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 December 2009 17:40:55 Neil Williams wrote:
>> No. The package should simply exit cleanly with a successful return
>> value if perl does not exist, letting everything else proceed as before.
>> The postinst itself needs to
On Wednesday 16 December 2009 17:40:55 Neil Williams wrote:
> No. The package should simply exit cleanly with a successful return
> value if perl does not exist, letting everything else proceed as before.
> The postinst itself needs to check - that way, Emdebian doesn't have to
> patch every packag
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:25:35 +0100
Dominique Dumont wrote:
> Le lundi 7 décembre 2009 04:19:34, Paul Wise a écrit :
> > It would still be nice if the postinst snippets didn't have to be
> > patched for EmDebian. I imagine this would simply mean checking for
> > perl in the postinst and only perfo
Le lundi 7 décembre 2009 04:19:34, Paul Wise a écrit :
> It would still be nice if the postinst snippets didn't have to be
> patched for EmDebian. I imagine this would simply mean checking for
> perl in the postinst and only performing configuration upgrades when
> it is available.
Paul, during pa
Le vendredi 4 décembre 2009 12:35:30, Neil Williams a écrit :
> Does Config::Model obey DEBCONF_NONINTERACTIVE_SEEN=true ?
>
> http://wiki.debian.org/Multistrap#Environment
Once the debconf question is removed, Config::Model will be used in non-
interactive mode (-ui none option) in postinst.
Al
On Tuesday 08 December 2009 08:58:59 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Fair enough. So, in your terminology, a model is the schema. How do you
> call instances?
Well, I tend to use 3 entities in my doc:
- the model (perl data structures loaded in Config::Model object).
- Configuration instance (derived
Le dimanche 13 décembre 2009 17:48:13, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> Can I write my own upgrade script in Perl and have it play with
> the models involved in the upgrade (i.e., the old model and the new
> model) in the same scripts to migrate from one to the other in some
> ad-hoc way?.
>
Yes. U
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 06:11:06PM +0100, Dominique Dumont wrote:
> In the first case, it's better to ship the model in a separate package and
> upload it to CPAN. Debian-perl team will then package it.
>
> In the second case, the model can be shipped only in the debian package.
Well, I believe
Le vendredi 4 décembre 2009 19:46:04, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 06:54:56PM +0100, Dominique Dumont wrote:
> > The idea was to offer the user a possibility to bail out since
> > config-model is still experimental. But I'm beginning to wonder if
> > this is a good idea...
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 10:57:56PM +0100, Dominique Dumont wrote:
> A model for Config::Model is to a configuration file what a schema is to an
> XML file: a description of the structure and constraint of the semantic data
> of the file.
Fair enough. So, in your terminology, a model is the sche
Le vendredi 4 décembre 2009 17:48:00, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> Well, reading your posts I understand there is in fact a
> misunderstanding. The question mentioned in the reported wiki page has
> nothing to do with a debconf question: is the question posed by dpkg
> when there is a mismatch be
Le vendredi 4 décembre 2009 20:08:57, gregor herrmann a écrit :
> Since you speak French you might be interested in Dominique's
> presentation at some French Perl meeting:
> http://fpw2009.ubicast.eu/videos/free/64/
Today, I've recorded today an English version of this presentation (with some
enh
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 7:28 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> | As is adding a perl dependency to packages that have no previous need
> | for perl.
>
> *shrug*, unless you're talking about embedded systems, which are of
> course free to patch their way out of this some other way, most systems
> will h
]] Neil Williams
| > * foo 1.0 ships /etc/foo.conf with
| > featureA=yes
| > featureB=no
| > * I change featureB to yes
| > * foo 2.0 ships /etc/foo.conf with
| > featureA=yes
| > featureB=no
| > featureC=7
| > * Now dpkg ask if I want the new version or my modified one. But what
| >
On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 05:41:14PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> It is beginning to make some sense but the problems do not outweigh the
> (frankly wishlist) benefits so far outlined. If the package isn't
> buggy, it won't need a model
No, not really. The package can be perfectly fine and still be
Le vendredi 4 décembre 2009 20:36:19, Joey Hess a écrit :
> But it does seem likely that packages using it could fall back to
> current config file handling if Config::Model were not available
> in an embedded system.
Agreed. That's a reasonable goal.
Dominique
--
http://config-model.wiki.sourcef
Le vendredi 4 décembre 2009 19:38:19, Neil Williams a écrit :
> That's a user change, I thought the point of this was that changes *not
> done by users* are causing problems. Different problem.
Currently, debian package will detect correctly if a user (or a script) left
the configuration unmodifi
Le vendredi 4 décembre 2009 13:01:39, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> My reading of the above quoted test, is that Config::Model is not
> seeking to replace debconf; it is going to use it as other packages do
> for interacting with the user. Or, to be more precise, my understanding
> is that the pac
Neil Williams wrote:
> From an embedded perspective, we certainly don't want every
> configurable package depending on perl at package installation /
> upgrade time - that's why we have cdebconf.
And if that argument had been used when debconf was being written, we
might currently have neither deb
On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:46:04 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Oh, well, I should probably
> just study Config::Model!
Since you speak French you might be interested in Dominique's
presentation at some French Perl meeting:
http://fpw2009.ubicast.eu/videos/free/64/
Cheers,
gregor
--
.''`. h
On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:38:19 +, Neil Williams wrote:
> > * Or more generally: I want to preserve my locally modified values
> > and at the same time update the rest which I haven't touched.
> That's a user change, I thought the point of this was that changes *not
> done by users* are causing
On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 06:54:56PM +0100, Dominique Dumont wrote:
> The idea was to offer the user a possibility to bail out since
> config-model is still experimental. But I'm beginning to wonder if
> this is a good idea...
IMO it is not, in the sense that it is quite pointless to put this
choice
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 19:25:54 +0100
gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:32:13 +, Neil Williams wrote:
>
> > > Configuration file `/etc/sensors3.conf'
> > > ==> File on system created by you or by a script.
> > > ==> File also in package provided by package maintainer.
> > >Wh
Le vendredi 4 décembre 2009 19:00:55, Felipe Sateler a écrit :
> Well, there is an abstract model of the config file. So yes, basically
> it parses the file into an internal model. I believe the idea is to be
> able to migrate automagically from one version to the next without user
> intervention.
On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:32:13 +, Neil Williams wrote:
> > Configuration file `/etc/sensors3.conf'
> > ==> File on system created by you or by a script.
> > ==> File also in package provided by package maintainer.
> >What would you like to do about it ? Your options are:
> > Y or I :
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 17:10:20 +0100
Dominique Dumont wrote:
> On Friday 04 December 2009 11:18:46 Neil Williams wrote:
> > (FYI the upstream CPAN description doesn't answer any of my
> > questions below either. At no point is a Config Model explained or
> > described or is any attempt made to expla
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 16:56 +, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:29:28 -0300
> Felipe Sateler wrote:
>
> > > Where is the Model?
> > >
> > > Who designs the Model?
> >
> > You (or hopefully someone else who had the same config file syntax).
>
> Then it's a config file parser, n
Le vendredi 4 décembre 2009 10:57:51, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> I wonder why the detail about how the conf file is being upgraded should
> be relevant to the final user at all. As you observe on the wiki page,
> most lusers barely know of the existence of /etc, why should they care
> about Con
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 17:48:00 +0100
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 04:04:04PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> > So it claims but that still doesn't make sense. Merely repeating the
> > statement without supporting the assertion doesn't help.
>
> Well, reading your posts I unders
On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:29:28 -0300
Felipe Sateler wrote:
> > Where is the Model?
> >
> > Who designs the Model?
>
> You (or hopefully someone else who had the same config file syntax).
Then it's a config file parser, not a modeller?
> > Is the model package specific or system-wide?
>
> File
[ reordering some quoted text ]
On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 04:04:04PM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> So it claims but that still doesn't make sense. Merely repeating the
> statement without supporting the assertion doesn't help.
Well, reading your posts I understand there is in fact a
misunderstandin
On Friday 04 December 2009 11:18:46 Neil Williams wrote:
> The package version doesn't sound like a new project, who is using it
> (and why?).
Sorry, that's a typo. The version is 0.640-3. The project is new.
> (FYI the upstream CPAN description doesn't answer any of my questions
> below either.
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 16:04 +, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 16:45:53 +0100
> gregor herrmann wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:18:46 +, Neil Williams wrote:
> >
> > > > For more informations, see
> > > > http://wiki.debian.org/PackageConfigUpgrade
> > > Which describes the
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 16:45:53 +0100
gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:18:46 +, Neil Williams wrote:
>
> > > For more informations, see
> > > http://wiki.debian.org/PackageConfigUpgrade
> > Which describes the technical minutiae of the codebase without
> > explaining the "big pict
On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:18:46 +, Neil Williams wrote:
> > For more informations, see http://wiki.debian.org/PackageConfigUpgrade
> Which describes the technical minutiae of the codebase without
> explaining the "big picture" benefits of using the model or how the
> model proposes to "fix" the (
On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 11:35:30AM +, Neil Williams wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 09:08:03AM +0100, Dominique Dumont wrote:
> > > The end user may have to answer a medium debconf question asking him
> > > whether to upgrade foobar package with Config::Model. Hopefully,
> > > that's all the
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 10:57:51 +0100
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 09:08:03AM +0100, Dominique Dumont wrote:
> > The end user may have to answer a medium debconf question asking him
> > whether to upgrade foobar package with Config::Model. Hopefully,
> > that's all the end user
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 09:08:03 +0100
Dominique Dumont wrote:
> The last version of libconfig-model-perl (640-3) is now shipped with
> dh_config_model_upgrade.
The package version doesn't sound like a new project, who is using it
(and why?).
(FYI the upstream CPAN description doesn't answer any of
On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 09:08:03AM +0100, Dominique Dumont wrote:
> The last version of libconfig-model-perl (640-3) is now shipped with
> dh_config_model_upgrade.
Cool, thanks for the update.
> The end user may have to answer a medium debconf question asking him
> whether to upgrade foobar pack
45 matches
Mail list logo
