Quoting Nick Daly (2013-09-03 16:24:38) > On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]> wrote: > > Quoting Tim Retout (2013-09-03 09:31:20) > >> The debian-edu project handles more complex configuration using > >> cfengine - if they found it necessary, I suspect this project will. > >> (I believe Petter might know more about this than me.) > > > > Goal of Debian Edu is minimizing system administration to 1 hour per > > week (or some such number). FreedomBox must have *zero* > > administration. > > > > Therefore I see debconf as the *only* possibility we have: Debian > > package maintainers *must* support the configurations that we need > > for FreedomBox, as there are noone else between them and the > > (non-technical!) user. > > Jonas, I wish you had made that clarification years ago.
Well, "years ago" (august 2010) I wrote this: > The only proper way for a reliably maintained > Debian->deployer->sysadmin chain as I see it, is for debconf to be > improved to handle reliably other package maintainance tasks than > install. http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/2010-August/000074.html ...and (september 2010) this: > My preaching is to work *with* Debian instead of *on* *top* *of* > Debian. > > And my belif - argued in more detail in other posts of this thread - > is that the only sane approach is to use debconf, and enhance debconf. http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/2010-September/000115.html ...and numerous posts posts to 24 threads in this mailinglist over the years, preaching debconf as then IMO only sane approach. > FWIW, I think you're right, which makes me a little bit sad, because > the FreedomBoxiness of a particular package then becomes yet another > unfunded mandate on upstream's or the packager's time (it starts to > sound like SPDX). That's a hard bargain, socially. Nonetheless, it > does seem to validate the approach of experimenting with the system to > see what configuration options are actually required. This is why the > TODO list has all the packaging and configuration steps in the 2.0 > release: so we can poke at the system before asking devs to implement > features or accept patches. I am excited that you agree with me (but puzzled what makes you sad). Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that we should play with configurations, to help decide what we then want to try convince Debian developers to implement debconf hooks for in their official Debian packages: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/2010-October/000164.html - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
_______________________________________________ Freedombox-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
