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

[Olaf van der Spek]

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> wrote:
> 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.

I understand.

>>> 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.

So normal users don't see any additional questions? That's good.

>> "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'm not sure I follow.

>> 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.

It's not rocket science. I don't see why you'd waste time on a work
around when you could be spending time on the solution.

>
>>> 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.

Ah. Except Eloy I haven't heard from the others in a long while.

>>> 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.

Seems a bit silly to require others to use the tools you prefer just
because that's easier for you.

> 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?

I assume you'd like to work on the Debconf related part?

Olaf