FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 12-05-2009, 07:55 PM
Manoj Srivastava
 
Default Should ucf be of priority required?

On Sat, Dec 05 2009, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:


> What speaks against it? Its basically a mini tool (Installed-Size: 260)
> and not making it essential leads to the mentioned situations.

I am afraid I do not follow -- what situations are improved by
making ucf essential?

> The only bad thing is, that it depends on a tool which is not essential
> (debconf) and seems not to be able to render questions without debconf.

Actually, the ask questions without debconf functionality was
ripped out just a couple of months ago, since not using debconf is now
a policy violation.

> Or should we simply not care about packages modifying files (via
> external tools) and not reverting those changes when beeing removed?

If you are going to remove the file, why bother reverting any
changes?

manoj
--
It is a poor judge who cannot award a prize.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 12-05-2009, 09:29 PM
Patrick Schoenfeld
 
Default Should ucf be of priority required?

On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 06:37:45PM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
> It is the package's responsibility to remove those files, "ucf --purge"
> does not do that, see ucf(1).

I never said that. The problem are not the files owned by the package,
but the files owned by ucf, which are modified by ucfr, while not
restoring the changes if ucf is not around.

Best Regards,
Patrick


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 12-05-2009, 09:33 PM
Patrick Schoenfeld
 
Default Should ucf be of priority required?

On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 07:16:58PM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> >So the call of ucf looks something like that:
> >
> > if which ucf >/dev/null; then
> > ucf --purge /etc/foo.conf
> > fi
>
> no, the correct one is:
>
> if which ucf >/dev/null; then
> $whatever_ucf_command /etc/foo.conf
> else
> rm -f /etc/foo.conf
> fi

You don't get the point. ucf does not remove the files, it removes
the files from its own registry. So your if-else doesn't really help.

Best Regards,
Patrick


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 12-05-2009, 10:25 PM
Manoj Srivastava
 
Default Should ucf be of priority required?

On Sat, Dec 05 2009, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 06:37:45PM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
>> It is the package's responsibility to remove those files, "ucf --purge"
>> does not do that, see ucf(1).
>
> I never said that. The problem are not the files owned by the package,
> but the files owned by ucf, which are modified by ucfr, while not
> restoring the changes if ucf is not around.

Well, if ucf is not around, one should not expect the internal
state of ucf to be up to date. Is this a problem?

manoj
--
"You can't make a program without broken egos."
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 12-06-2009, 12:26 AM
Patrick Schoenfeld
 
Default Should ucf be of priority required?

On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 05:25:29PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 05 2009, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 06:37:45PM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
> >> It is the package's responsibility to remove those files, "ucf --purge"
> >> does not do that, see ucf(1).
> >
> > I never said that. The problem are not the files owned by the package,
> > but the files owned by ucf, which are modified by ucfr, while not
> > restoring the changes if ucf is not around.
>
> Well, if ucf is not around, one should not expect the internal
> state of ucf to be up to date. Is this a problem?

Yep. This is the whole point of asking this: Is this a problem for us
or do we simply ignore it? E.g. the fact that a package can change the
state of an external program, but eventually not restore it. The problem
with it is, that the change is bound to the package removed, not to ucf,
thats why I'm wondering at all.

Regards,
Patrick
>
> manoj
> --
> "You can't make a program without broken egos."
> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 12-06-2009, 01:35 AM
Manoj Srivastava
 
Default Should ucf be of priority required?

On Sat, Dec 05 2009, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 05:25:29PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 05 2009, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 06:37:45PM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
>> >> It is the package's responsibility to remove those files, "ucf --purge"
>> >> does not do that, see ucf(1).
>> >
>> > I never said that. The problem are not the files owned by the package,
>> > but the files owned by ucf, which are modified by ucfr, while not
>> > restoring the changes if ucf is not around.
>>
>> Well, if ucf is not around, one should not expect the internal
>> state of ucf to be up to date. Is this a problem?
>
> Yep. This is the whole point of asking this: Is this a problem for us
> or do we simply ignore it? E.g. the fact that a package can change the
> state of an external program, but eventually not restore it. The
> problem with it that the change is bound to the package removed, not
> to ucf, thats why I'm wondering at all.

That's pretty abstract. And this generally, there might not be
something one may say one way or the other, and have to deal with it on
a case by case basis.

In this particular case, do you see I concrete problem that I do
not? If you think there is a concrete problem, can you explain? I
can't see a problem here, and the ucf man page has wat I beliece to be
the correct advice.

manoj
--
It is bad luck to be superstitious. Andrew W. Mathis
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 12-06-2009, 04:12 AM
Norbert Preining
 
Default Should ucf be of priority required?

Not wanting to start another flame war, but ...

On Sa, 05 Dez 2009, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> The crux is the last point. For a good reason postrm must not require
> tools it depends on to be around when removing the package itself.

making dpkg policy compliant would help, too, then we removed package
can expect dependcies to be present.

Best wishes

Norbert
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norbert Preining preining@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TU Wien, Austria Debian TeX Task Force
DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DULUTH (adj.)
The smell of a taxi out of which people have just got.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 12-06-2009, 05:47 AM
Manoj Srivastava
 
Default Should ucf be of priority required?

On Sat, Dec 05 2009, Norbert Preining wrote:

> Not wanting to start another flame war, but ...
>
> On Sa, 05 Dez 2009, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
>> The crux is the last point. For a good reason postrm must not require
>> tools it depends on to be around when removing the package itself.
>
> making dpkg policy compliant would help, too, then we removed package
> can expect dependcies to be present.

Umm, what parts of policy would that be?

,----[ 7.2. Binary Dependencies - `Depends' ... ]
| `Depends'
| This declares an absolute dependency. A package will not be
| configured unless all of the packages listed in its `Depends'
| field have been correctly configured.
|
| The `Depends' field should be used if the depended-on package is
| required for the depending package to provide a significant
| amount of functionality.
|
| The `Depends' field should also be used if the `postinst',
| `prerm' or `postrm' scripts require the package to be present in
| order to run. Note, however, that the `postrm' cannot rely on
| any non-essential packages to be present during the `purge'
| phase.
`----

So, policy does not require dependencies to be around at least
during purge.

manoj
--
My only love sprung from my only hate! Too early seen unknown, and
known too late! -- William Shakespeare, "Romeo and Juliet"
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 12-06-2009, 07:01 AM
Norbert Preining
 
Default Should ucf be of priority required?

On So, 06 Dez 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> So, policy does not require dependencies to be around at least
> during purge.

Ah yes of course, sorry. I was referring to the remove phase, where it
is also not present, although policy states it.

Best wishes

Norbert
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norbert Preining preining@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TU Wien, Austria Debian TeX Task Force
DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GLORORUM (n.)
One who takes pleasure in informing others about their bowel
movements.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 12-06-2009, 11:15 AM
Patrick Schoenfeld
 
Default Should ucf be of priority required?

On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 11:44:39AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Making a package essential in order to avoid a if clause in
> postinsts is very likely too frivolous a reason to pass muster, yes.

I do not want to avoid the if-clause. I want to avoid leaving modified
files around when removing a package, that modified them (indirectly)
in the first place.

Regards,
Patrick


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:11 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org