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

[Jonas Smedegaard]

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 02:37:59PM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
>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.

Oh, ok.  What I meant was for a Debian system to be exactly in the same 
state before and after installing+removing+purging e.g. sympa.

>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.

It solves the issue of your package collecting cruft of other packages' 
install routines because they cannot revert during purge: Normal users 
would not see the question, while providing an opt-in for careful users.


>>> 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?

Above is an introduction. Doesn't make sense to discuss that out of its 
context below.


>> 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.

Sure. Improvements won't hurt.

And while waiting for improvements to debconf to occur, the larger 
packaging ecosystem will benefit from adding custom debconf code, I 
believe.


>> 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

The package lists 3 uploaders.

>> 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?

Instead of debating that, let's try the opposite:

Would you be interested in teaming up with me in maintaining lighttpd 
for Debian?

Due to my personal streamlining (I am involved in 140+ packages), I 
require all packages that I am involved in to use CDBS and 
git-buildpackage.

I am happy to educate you in using those tools.  But don't expect to 
convince me to use SVN or dh (a.k.a. short-form debhelper - I happily 
use debhelper, but wrapped with CDBS instead of letting it take over the 
whole rules file).

Is that of any interest?


  - Jonas

-- 
  * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
  * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-lighttpd-maintainers/attachments/20101026/94a62af1/attachment.pgp>