Re: package transition question

2010-11-07 Thread Harald Jenny
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 10:08:56AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Harald Jenny > wrote: > > > Well I thought you were talking about using it in the Debian install scripts > > which would make it rather Debian specific (upstream development is done > > rather > > with F

Re: package transition question

2010-11-07 Thread Paul Wise
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Harald Jenny wrote: > Well I thought you were talking about using it in the Debian install scripts > which would make it rather Debian specific (upstream development is done > rather > with Fedora). Well, the model you would need to write could be used by both th

Re: package transition question

2010-11-07 Thread Harald Jenny
On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 04:22:22PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Harald Jenny > wrote: > > > That's a very nice suggestion but I think the init script option will make > > more > > sense for the OS community as a whole. > > Config::Model is not distribution-specific

Re: package transition question

2010-11-07 Thread Paul Wise
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Harald Jenny wrote: > That's a very nice suggestion but I think the init script option will make > more > sense for the OS community as a whole. Config::Model is not distribution-specific so I fail to see how using it would be worse. Combining it with the init s

Re: package transition question

2010-11-04 Thread Harald Jenny
On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 10:13:28PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 8:26 PM, The Fungi wrote: > > > Alternatives would be (more user friendly) come up with a > > configuration translator if all existing options can have a 1-to-1 > > transform/mapping to new options or syntax, > >

Re: package transition question

2010-11-04 Thread Harald Jenny
On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 12:26:00PM +, The Fungi wrote: > On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 11:59:27AM +0100, Harald Jenny wrote: > [...] > > Our current idea is to do the installation, run the program in > > postinst to check for config errors and if we find some we issue a > > warning message and cease

Re: package transition question

2010-11-03 Thread Paul Wise
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 8:26 PM, The Fungi wrote: > Alternatives would be (more user friendly) come up with a > configuration translator if all existing options can have a 1-to-1 > transform/mapping to new options or syntax, You can use Config::Model to facilitate such configuration upgrades. The

Re: package transition question

2010-11-03 Thread The Fungi
On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 11:59:27AM +0100, Harald Jenny wrote: [...] > Our current idea is to do the installation, run the program in > postinst to check for config errors and if we find some we issue a > warning message and cease to restart the daemon - or does anybody > have a better idea? Basica

package transition question

2010-11-03 Thread Harald Jenny
Hi all, I'm facing a problem and thought maybe someone here has a solution or could point me into the right direction: The package openswan currently has version 2.4.12 in Lenny whereas in Squeeze version 2.6.28 will appear. As the version number suggest this means some deep changes, also concerni