[Openstack-devel] Bug#704949: Bug#704949: Bug#704949: cinder: [debconf_rewrite] Debconf templates and debian/control review proposal

Thomas Goirand thomas at goirand.fr
Mon Apr 8 09:52:58 UTC 2013


On Mon Apr   8 2013 04:39:10 PM CST, Christian PERRIER <bubulle at debian.org> wrote:

> Quoting Thomas Goirand (zigo at debian.org):
> 
> > So, in all of the above packages, we have a huge redundancy in
> > templates. I thought that best would be to have a system to avoid this
> > redundancy, like having a package holding (most of) the templates, and
> > we would do dynamic replacements of variables. This way, translations
> > would need to happen only once, which would be a very good thing.
> 
> That seems to be a good idea, at first glance. Something like
> openstack-debconfig, or openstack-config.
> 
> Using dbconfig-common for all database-related stuff is also a good
> idea. I'm not sure how well it is maintained but it's anyway better
> than reinventing the very same templates to prompt users about
> databases, database users, password, etc.

Yeah, we use it already for all packages that need
a db!

> You mention you have concerns about it....they probably come because
> the package is not that actively maintained, I'm afraid.

You missunderstood me. I have no problem to actualy
*use* dbconfig-common, I have problems to read its
code as an example, and would like to find something
more easy to understand.

So, do you have another package in mind which I
could use as an example?

> Sure. Let's hold the translation effort as of now. My recommendation
> would be to make templates non translatable (drop the leading "_") in
> the meantime, so that cinder moves away from our radar (having too
> many packages in a kinda "pending" state doesn't help tracking down
> stuff).

I think I will reupload it in Experimental and ask
for its removal from SID in fact. This wouldn't be
the only reason why I would ask that in fact.

Thomas (from my phone)



More information about the Openstack-devel mailing list