Comment 3 for bug 191064

@Steve: the changes are okay; some remarks though:

a) We stay with a native package while we have some Ubuntu changes; it would be logical to move to non-native here.

b) Maintainer: field dance anyone? :-)

c) I think you should prepare a crownbeach-config package with a bumped dependency on ume-config-common (e.g. >= 0.10-0ubuntu1) as to prevent installation of ume-config-common 0.10.0 with an updated crownbeach-config (0.17-0ubuntu1) -- as none of these two packages would be altering the default, and hence we would miss the GConf changes. ume-config-common should be updated first and crownbeach can be fixed a bit later, both packages can be setting this for a little while without causing any issue. (IOW: this isn't blocking the sponsoring of ume-config-common, but we should keep this bug open to remember dropping the gcontool call from crownbeach-config)

d) On the changes themselves: using a gconftool-2 call changing the settings of the "ume" user and telling users to please not install this package is quite ugly in general; instead, it would be much more elegant to use a gconf defaults file with higher priority than the other ones; this is described in the dh_gconf manual page and in /usr/share/doc/gconf2/README.Debian (you could use a priority of 20/30 or so I guess). Such a setup would allow:
- to not overwrite the GConf settings of the ume users (only the *default* is set, and if the user changed the default, this is kept, if he didn't, he gets the updated default)
- to act on the default for all users, and so not hardcode "ume"
- this would be completely reverted by the removal of the package; at least for this, we wouldn't need to warn users about installation if this package only tweaks the defaults

Could you prepare a new upload for a) and b)? I'm afraid it's more work per upload as what we used to do in the past, but I guess we're in a period where we try to "cleanup" the packaging a little and stay a bit closer to the "Ubuntu way".