On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 06:28:28PM -0000, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Ok. Should I prepare the changes to clock-setup and ubiquity?
If you could, that would be great. Obviously if you don't have time
then let me know.
> > * I don't quite understand what "sed -i -e's/^UTC=.*/UTC=yes/'
> > /etc/default/rcS" is for. Is that so that dpkg conffile replacement
> > works? Would it be better to forcibly remove the option in the
> > postinst, instead or perhaps as well? Editing conffiles is of course
> > always a bit scary, so I suppose go with whatever approach
> > initscripts has historically taken here ...
>
> This is to suppress the wrong conffile replacement prompt, yes, by ensuring
> that the copy of the file on disk doesn't have any spurious delta caused by
> the UTC setting that we're moving out of the way. I'm confident that this
> part of the code is doing the right thing, neither incorrectly losing any
> user preferences nor mangling the file in a way that will *cause* conffile
> prompts incorrectly on upgrade. (This is a sed to UTC=yes, rather than a
> removal, because that ensures it matches the interim version of the conffile
> as shipped in the package currently in saucy, giving the correct results for
> both pre-saucy and saucy upgrades.)
OK. Most things relating to conffile mangling in maintainer scripts
still give me the shivers, but this seems reasonable enough.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 06:28:28PM -0000, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Ok. Should I prepare the changes to clock-setup and ubiquity?
If you could, that would be great. Obviously if you don't have time
then let me know.
> > * I don't quite understand what "sed -i -e's/^UTC= .*/UTC= yes/'
> > /etc/default/rcS" is for. Is that so that dpkg conffile replacement
> > works? Would it be better to forcibly remove the option in the
> > postinst, instead or perhaps as well? Editing conffiles is of course
> > always a bit scary, so I suppose go with whatever approach
> > initscripts has historically taken here ...
>
> This is to suppress the wrong conffile replacement prompt, yes, by ensuring
> that the copy of the file on disk doesn't have any spurious delta caused by
> the UTC setting that we're moving out of the way. I'm confident that this
> part of the code is doing the right thing, neither incorrectly losing any
> user preferences nor mangling the file in a way that will *cause* conffile
> prompts incorrectly on upgrade. (This is a sed to UTC=yes, rather than a
> removal, because that ensures it matches the interim version of the conffile
> as shipped in the package currently in saucy, giving the correct results for
> both pre-saucy and saucy upgrades.)
OK. Most things relating to conffile mangling in maintainer scripts
still give me the shivers, but this seems reasonable enough.