Bas Wijnen <wij...@debian.org> writes: > Certainly. You seem to have misunderstood my intention. I don't mean > to say we should force packages to use a standard package.config. That > file should be used to do all the things it must do. What I'm proposing > is to make it easy for packages with simple file formats (the majority > of cases) to do what they should to: read their config and using it as > defaults.
Hm, I think the idea of a format-aware configuration editor (similar to Config::Model::Edit, actually) that's aware of Debconf mappings for parameters would be extremely useful. That would be something I would love to use in maintainer scripts. (And another good reason to write maintainer scripts in a better language, such as Perl, which sadly isn't that well-supported right now.) > Being responsible is not the same as doing it alone. In this case, help > would be useful. And due to the limits of when it is run, there aren't > many places it can come from (either an Essential:yes package or > debconf). That's a good point, and definitely one of the things that makes using, say, Config::Model::Edit for this purpose rather tricky. > But while the debhelper-addon-trick seems ugly to me, it does have > several advantages: > - It is nonintrusive; only packages which want to use it do. > - It works; the config files will contain copies of the required code. > - There is no code duplication in the source packages. (Lots of it in > the binary packages, of course; this is like using a static library.) > It's the best solution I can currently think of. Would you agree that > this would be useful? Yes. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87bo16wnvv....@windlord.stanford.edu
