[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 3:41 PM, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> wrote:
> So you find it more important to not "bother" our users with questions than
> to help provide idempotency of packages: allow packages to clean up after
> themselves.

AFAIK idempotency isn't the right word.
Yes, in this case I think it's better to not bother the user than to
do perfect cleanup.

> You could ask at install time something like "Ignore module
> auto-disabling?", and (ah, another benefit of debconf!) mark the question as
> being of low severity to only bother users wanting to be bothered.

That doesn't solve anything, a normal user wouldn't see the question.

>> Wouldn't it be better to add hooks for normal scripts to the install
>> process?
>
> No.  You are right that it is possible, but debconf and package lists are
> the standard formats for the debian-installer, whereas hooks are custom
> code.
>
> You dislike the amount of custom code needed to use debconf.  So do I.

"lighty-enable-mod ..." seems to be the minimal amount of code/data. A
Debconf approach wouldn't use less data, would it?

> I would like that to go away, and had (among other work) an hour-long phone
> international phone conversation with the author of Config::Model to
> encourage working on integrating those two.

Haven't heard of Config::Model before. I'll have a look.

> For other parts of the Debian system I also want custom code to be avoided
> whenever possible.  I want to be able to remote-control the configuration of
> packages through the de-facto standard Debian system for that purpose:
> debconf.

I understand, but IMO that may/should involve improving Debconf if necessary.

> You seem reluctant to this, and it seems to me that your reason for
> hesitating is exactly the same reason that I want you to do it: To avoid
> amount of custom code.  Your adding one distributed piece of custom code may
> help several others avoid custom pieces of code at install time.

I agree, that's desirable.

>> None, actually. As a developer.
>
> Ah, that helps explain your scepticism.
>
> Please do consider it - even though it needs custom code.

I'll have a look.

> I could offer my help generally with maintaining it - but notice that you
> are a little team already.  Besides I favor other packaging tools (CDBS and

Eh, what team? :p

> git-buildpackage) which I imagine you wouldn't want to adopt just to get me
> involved.

Why would a change be necessary before you can get involved?

Olaf