On 21-Apr-03, 21:16 (CDT), John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes:
> > I (apparently incorrectly) presumed that debconf was also intended to
> > allow for the eventual automation of replicated Debian installations.
>
> I distinctly remember reading exactly that.
I remember that this came along later, but I could be incorrect. It's
misguided, though.
For this to work, we need *EVERY* configuration variable needs to be
under the control of debconf, and we can just get rid of conffiles and
support of editing files directly.
Otherwise, you still need an alternative way to distribute configuration
data/files (e.g. cfengine), and then there's no need to use debconf,
except as a standard frontend for the non-defaultable options.
Don't get me wrong, I'm *NOT* against debconf. I think it's great
to have a standard UI for installation questions. I'm against being
asked questions about things that should just default, and I'm against
converting conffiles to non-conffiles for no reason. If I want to change
a default, I'll edit the file, and you damned will better not overwrite
it.
Now, if ucf (or some other tool) can make non-conffiles work as well as
conffiles, and people use it correctly, and it integrates properly into
dpkg and apt, then that will be cool, and about 90% of my objections
will go away, and I'll be reduced to filing bugs against packages that
think "Should I make your cursor blink blue or green" is a high-priority
question. I look forward to that day.
Regards,
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
