[Freedombox-discuss] debconf is the only way...

Nick Daly nick.m.daly at gmail.com
Tue Sep 3 18:22:30 UTC 2013


On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> wrote:
> Quoting Nick Daly (2013-09-03 16:24:38)
>> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> wrote:
>> > 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:
> ...and (september 2010) this:
> ...and numerous posts posts to 24 threads in this mailinglist over the
> years, preaching debconf as then IMO only sane approach.

Yes, but due to limitations of my own imagination, I didn't quite
understand why you felt that way.  That's why I was thanking you for
the clarification, as I recognize you've been making the point all
along. :)

>> 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...
>
> I am excited that you agree with me (but puzzled what makes you sad).

Sad only because it can be difficult to get buy in from packagers or
upstream, because we're requiring work from other owners who aren't
necessarily independently motivated to do that work.  I just hate
taking other folks' time instead of doing it myself.

> 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

The part I'm not completely sure about is when it's appropriate to
release a package with a completely custom configuration versus
requesting additional debconf hooks.  That's probably a very minor
detail, though.

IIUC, FM will lead the charge before changes are folded back into
Debian proper.  The only obvious sticking point is the upgrade path
from FM to real-Debian for those select guru users who choose that
path.  In effect, that might be a no-op as FM should eventually become
Debian proper.  Of course, that only matters after we get past the
upgrade-by-blowing-away-previous-FM-installs stage.

Nick



More information about the Freedombox-discuss mailing list