Re: Bug#574443: debhelper: New helper proposal: dh_oldconffiles (or similar name)
(Jean-Christophe, you could have kept Joey in the CC in your reply) Hi, On Thu, 01 Apr 2010, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote: > > The patch still seems good. From the history of > > http://wiki.debian.org/DpkgConffileHandling , I see only one bugfix has > > been made to that page since, that should be folded into the patch. It is > > described here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/03/msg00795.html > > There is also the fact that the code on this page does not deal with the > abort-upgrade condition. Code doing that (for moving conffile) > should also test for abort-upgrade in prerm and put back in place the > conffile; Is that really worth taking care of? Worst case, the old conffile is freshly reinstalled and the user changes are lost... but downgrades are not officially supported by Debian anyway. Jean-Christophe, are you volunteering to add the support of downgrade in the dpkg-conffile tool proposed by Joey? > for deleting conffile, the conffile should not be deleted too > soon (but moved away and deleted in the postinst/postrm). Here I tend to agree. Joey, what's the reason for advocating an early removal in the prerm? In any case, I tend to agree that we have waited for far too long on this one. Despite Guillem's will to fix the underlying issue, we should really provide the piece of code to make it all work right now in dpkg itself. I will try to merge something during next week-end hopefully. Until then I would be glad if some people could review Joey's old proposal from http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2008/01/msg00143.html to see if there are problems in the approach. My only comment is that I'd like to restrain more what the user can do and less what dpkg-conffile can do. I would suggest to forward all options of the configuration scripts to dpkg-conffile and let dpkg-conffile mostly decide by itself if it must do something at that point or not. I would like also the package to be implicit by default and let dpkg-conffile use $DPKG_MAINTSCRIPT_PACKAGE to find out the current package. Instead of requiring the user to do: + case "$1" in + configure) + if dpkg --compare-versions "$2" le "$LASTVERSION"; then + dpkg-conffile mv mypackage /etc/pkg_conf /etc/pkg/conf + fi + esac He would do: dpkg-conffile mv $LASTVERSION /etc/pkg.conf /etc/pkg/conf -- postinst "$@" And in the preinst, it would be the same but "postinst" is replaced by "preinst". That way it would be effectively possible to add support of downgrades at some point if we decided to implement it in dpkg-conffile (provided that we have taken care to have dpkg-conffile hooked in all appropriate places which might mean more than what's currently required). More review/suggestions welcome of course before I merge such a new interface. Joey, if you feel like updating your patch to implement this, feel free to do it before the WE so that the chances that I merge it on time are higher. :) Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Like what I do? Sponsor me: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/05/5-years-of-freexian/ My Debian goals: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/09/debian-related-goals-for-2010/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100406125320.ga31...@rivendell
Re: Bug#574443: debhelper: New helper proposal: dh_oldconffiles (or similar name)
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 02:53:20PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > (Jean-Christophe, you could have kept Joey in the CC in your reply) Sorry. Will do. > Hi, > > On Thu, 01 Apr 2010, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote: > > > The patch still seems good. From the history of > > > http://wiki.debian.org/DpkgConffileHandling , I see only one bugfix has > > > been made to that page since, that should be folded into the patch. It is > > > described here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/03/msg00795.html > > > > There is also the fact that the code on this page does not deal with the > > abort-upgrade condition. Code doing that (for moving conffile) > > should also test for abort-upgrade in prerm and put back in place the > > conffile; > > Is that really worth taking care of? Worst case, the old conffile is freshly > reinstalled and the user changes are lost... but downgrades are not > officially supported by Debian anyway. I am not talking about downgrades, but failing upgrades (such as the one you get when you can not unpack the package correctly). > Jean-Christophe, are you volunteering to add the support of downgrade in > the dpkg-conffile tool proposed by Joey? Not downgrade, but failed upgrade, yes. I will modify the wiki for now, and try to catch up on dpkg source. (several minutes later): I did add the snippets for removing conffiles. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100406145616.ga9...@oberon.tenebreuse.org
Re: Bug#574443: debhelper: New helper proposal: dh_oldconffiles (or similar name)
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 02:53:20PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > I will try to merge something during next week-end hopefully. Until then I > would be glad if some people could review Joey's old proposal from > http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2008/01/msg00143.html > to see if there are problems in the approach. it might be nice if someone were to review/compare this use case for dpkg-conffile vs the proposed use case of a dpkg-conffile command from the conffile-tracking support[1], and see if the two could co-exist. speaking of which... is that patch set totally dead in the water now? i've been told numerous times in the past couple months that it'll be looked at "tonight" or "tomorrow" or will be the "next thing looked at"... sean [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2009/10/msg1.html -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#574443: debhelper: New helper proposal: dh_oldconffiles (or similar name)
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010, sean finney wrote: > On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 02:53:20PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > I will try to merge something during next week-end hopefully. Until then I > > would be glad if some people could review Joey's old proposal from > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2008/01/msg00143.html > > to see if there are problems in the approach. > > it might be nice if someone were to review/compare this use case for > dpkg-conffile vs the proposed use case of a dpkg-conffile command from > the conffile-tracking support[1], and see if the two could co-exist. Hum, right. On one hand I wanted to avoid polluting the namespace for what is a binary centralizing work-arounds by hiding it in a shell library but on the other hand this would limit its use to the configuration scripts which are shell scripts. Given this collision, and given that both implementations of dpkg-conffile would not share the same programming language (shell vs C), I think I should avoid adding dpkg-conffile and either rename it to something else or go for the shell function approach. > speaking of which... is that patch set totally dead in the water now? > i've been told numerous times in the past couple months that it'll be > looked at "tonight" or "tomorrow" or will be the "next thing looked at"... AFAIK it's not, but as usual Guillem has too much on its plate and he has no clear order of the stuff that he's going to review/merge. Maybe that would be an idea, Guillem, what about having a sorted list of stuff that you're going to review/merge that you would update on the fly so that people can know what's left before them... and maybe they can even help review the stuff sorted before them (it would be a sort of group learning of what's acceptable for dpkg). Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Like what I do? Sponsor me: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/05/5-years-of-freexian/ My Debian goals: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/09/debian-related-goals-for-2010/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100406165909.gb7...@rivendell
2.5% daily for 200 days with no risk.
Hi debian-dpkg@lists.debian.org, I would like to tell you about a very stable program I participate in since half a year. I made 560% profit at the moment. This is a Hong Kong traders group, working on stock, derivatives, and Forex markets. Their results are very consistent, they make up to 3% daily and the company pays investors up to 2.5% each day. HYt fund is really transparent, publishing their trading performance and offering phone, chat, and email support to investors. I am sure they are the guys to work with in 2010. Check them out: http://texugauto.com/kglt5r5m -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/blu143-ds157675b8c9a4491e9e371ef3...@phx.gbl
