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

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Nick Daly (2013-09-03 20:22:30)
> 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. :)

Ah - not _making_ the point, but making it _clear_ :-)

Thanks for the compliment! :-D

(only a bit sad I was so slow)


>>> 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.

You are not excluded from doing *all* the hard work yourself:

  * distill the config piece we need
  * think very hard how it can be relevant to most others as well
  * distill a draft configfile "patch" (e.g. multiple choice list)
  * file bugreport with draft idea, and argue the case
  * learn how debconf actually works to talk to install routines
  * try hack /var/lib/dpkg/info/<PKG>.postinst and test the hack: 
      dpkg-reconfigure <PKG>
  * create a local fork of <PKG> with hack applied, and test more
  * update bugreport providing patch
  * learn how libconfig-model-perl works to manage configfiles
  * improve patch using libconfig-model-perl to ease maintenance
  * update bugreport with updated patch
  * listen to arguments why it is still for maintainer to adopt
  * join debconf and discuss over beer why adoption saves kittens
  * join the packaging team (thanks to the beers) and apply patch
  * become Debian Maintainer and upload patched package to Debian
  * care for <PKG>, including annoying debconf bugs of others
  * become enlightened about politics, and become Debian Developer
  * etc...


>> 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.

No, not minor:

Convince a package maintainer to adopt a debconf hook, and you have a 
person (or a team) devoted to that code caring for its maintenance.

Use a simpler hook (e.g. a conf.d dir or slapd's save-inside-db) to 
create an addon config package, and you have yourself to continuously 
keep up with code and care yourself for its maintenance.


[notes on not-even-Debian-packages-yet tool Freedom-Maker snipped]

 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20130903/5317b0bf/attachment.sig>