[pkg-lighttpd] Bug#498951: Bug#498951: closed by Olaf van der Spek <olaf at xwis.net> ()

[Olaf van der Spek]

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> wrote:
>>> So what I would like was for packages that enable a module to be able to
>>> disable that module again on package removal iff no other packages(!) depend
>>> on that module being enabled.
>>
>> Hmm, I'm not sure.
>
> You are not sure I want that, or?

I think the user shouldn't be bothered with questions about whether a
module should be disabled.

> Why do you keep talking about distribution freeze/release?  I am not (except
> in trying to clarify how I believe you are mixing things).

I'm trying to tell you that the lighttpd.conf update might not be in
the next upload depending on whether that upload is targeted at
Squeeze.

>>> Debconf interface would allow a subdistro (a.k.a. a Debian Pure Blend) or
>>> a large deployment to "remote-control" the install of lighttpd itself when
>>> it is not a package needing a module but some other use.
>>
>> Why are normal scripts not usable in that case?
>
> Because normal scripts require being invoked _after_ installation, whereas
> debconf preseeding is injected as "metaconfig hints" to the install process
> itself.

Wouldn't it be better to add hooks for normal scripts to the install process?

>> Yeah, that failure isn't nice.
>> But again I think Debconf is not the right way to do this kind of
>> configuration, it requires (too much) custom code (I think).
>
> How much actual experience do you have with Debconf?

None, actually. As a developer.

Olaf