On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Marc Haber wrote:
> Nowadays one can call ucf in one's maintainer scripts in different
> ways and at different palaces. If ucf gets merged into dpkg (the
> binary), this possibility will most probably be lost, reducing ucf to
> a prettier looking conffile interface
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:47:33 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 1:38 AM, Marc Haber wrote:
>> I advocate doing things exactly the other way roud. Give package
>> maintainers the power!
>
>Why would merging ucf into dpkg remove the power from maintainers?
Nowadays one can call ucf in
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 1:38 AM, Marc Haber wrote:
> I advocate doing things exactly the other way roud. Give package
> maintainers the power!
Why would merging ucf into dpkg remove the power from maintainers?
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
I am open to suggestions.
Manoj
On November 16, 2015 9:38:23 AM PST, Marc Haber
wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 20:29:48 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>>On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 8:15 PM, Marc Haber wrote:
>>> I am aware of that. That's one of my reasons for advocating giving
>the
>>> needed love to ucf
On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 20:29:48 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 8:15 PM, Marc Haber wrote:
>> I am aware of that. That's one of my reasons for advocating giving the
>> needed love to ucf and to deprecate dpkg's conffile functions in favor
>> of ucf. A extended / enhanced ucf can repl
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 1:02 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ie, something which would allow packages to modify (in some controlled
> and reproducible way) (or even generate) the notional `as shipped'
> version.
There are at least Config::Model, augeas and (I think) Elektra (with
various levels of suppo
Marc Haber writes ("Re: Ideas to improve dpkg/ucf with hooks"):
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 23:10:11 +0100, Wouter Verhelst
> wrote:
> >On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 05:47:41PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> >> Regarding dpkg, its conffile handling is IMO beyond repair, it shou
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 8:15 PM, Marc Haber wrote:
> I am aware of that. That's one of my reasons for advocating giving the
> needed love to ucf and to deprecate dpkg's conffile functions in favor
> of ucf. A extended / enhanced ucf can replace dpkg with a lot less
> work than would be necessary t
On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 11:39:25 +0100, Alexandre Detiste
wrote:
>But adding dynamic file support in dpkg is a lot of work.
I am aware of that. That's one of my reasons for advocating giving the
needed love to ucf and to deprecate dpkg's conffile functions in favor
of ucf. A extended / enhanced ucf c
Le lundi 16 novembre 2015, 10:27:14 Marc Haber a écrit :
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 23:10:11 +0100, Wouter Verhelst
> wrote:
> >On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 05:47:41PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> >> Regarding dpkg, its conffile handling is IMO beyond repair, it should
> >> be deprecated and later removed.
>
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 23:10:11 +0100, Wouter Verhelst
wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 05:47:41PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
>> Regarding dpkg, its conffile handling is IMO beyond repair, it should
>> be deprecated and later removed.
>
>Could you explain why?
- It does not give maintainers the level o
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 05:47:41PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> Regarding dpkg, its conffile handling is IMO beyond repair, it should
> be deprecated and later removed.
Could you explain why?
--
It is easy to love a country that is famous for chocolate and beer
-- Barack Obama, speaking in Brus
Le samedi 14 novembre 2015, 15:50:28 15:50:28 Vincent Danjean a écrit :
> And, after the current discussion, I have new thoughts for more complex
> things:
> - to be able to track external directory (/usr/...) as 'models' for
> config files and to present the same kind of resolution conflict
>
Le 13/11/2015 18:39, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Adding in his or callbacks would be easy enough. Do you have an
> idea of what you would need for your use case?
I've some ideas, but no final proposition. Some thoughts:
- to be able to know :
* the old file and the new (proposed) on
Hi,
Adding in his or callbacks would be easy enough. Do you have an idea of what
you would need for your use case?
Manoj
On November 13, 2015 9:22:45 AM PST, Vincent Danjean
wrote:
>Le 13/11/2015 17:47, Marc Haber a écrit :
>> Actually, I don't quite see why ucf would need hooks since it
Le 13/11/2015 17:47, Marc Haber a écrit :
> Actually, I don't quite see why ucf would need hooks since it is
> called from the maintainer scripts, giving the local admin full power
> of creativity anyway. Chances are that ucf is already the right tool
> to maintain systemd and friends the Debian wa
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 15:36:09 +0100, Vincent Danjean
wrote:
> What I would really prefer is a work on a way to add hooks in
>dpkg/ucf so that:
>- original provided configuration files can be recorded (before
> admin modification/merge)
>- other merge strategies (dpkg only provides use old or new,
Le 11/11/2015 15:12, Marc Haber a écrit :
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 13:59:24 +0100, Mat wrote:
>> This is one strong key point of
>> Debian versus most other distribs. Please don't change that.
>
> For systemd, this change is already done. Noone cared.
I cared. Enough to, at least, move the systemd
18 matches
Mail list logo
