Hi Sylvain, let me first explain my personal background: I am a member of the german translation team, therefore, I deal with a lot of translations. Since it takes me time to translate, I feel a bit angree, if there are debconf strings to be translate, but are never used actually be debconf.
Also I know many "typical" debconf questions. When debconf is used by other packages, and when not. And mldonkey-server imho simply asks questions that are unnecessary (a typical so called "debconf misuse"). Also, I am a mldonkey user. > Well, i have tried to play with priority of debconf questions to remove > technical question for basic user (ie they are still there for > advanced user). OK. But I still think that some could be removed still, I explain below. > I will try to explain why, i cannot remove some options. > > > In #279030 it was agreed (afaict) that these should be removed from > > debconf. However, they are still used: > > mldonkey-server/mldonkey_group (set at 'mldonkey') > > mldonkey-server/run_as_user (set at 'mldonkey') > > A lot of user use VFAT mounted dir for /var/lib/mldonkey that required > very specific user to be accessed. Then imho the debian way to go for these users would be to change /etc/fstab to mount /var/lib/mldonkey with the mldonkey user. This would be clear and straightforward imho. So this could be removed imho. > > not 100% sure, but should afaikt also be removed from debconf: > > mldonkey-server/mldonkey_dir (could be set to /var/lib/mldonkey/) > > A lot of user use extra disk mounted following some strange layout > (/mnt/free0...). Off course they can do a symlink... Let these users do a symlink. If these users prefer a strange layout for their filesystem it's there fault. And actually they really should not prefer a strange layout anyway. So I still think, this should be removed. I mean apache also refers to /var/www automatically -- if a user rather wants to publish webpages from /mnt/whatever, then a) it is their fault and b) this should not be supported by having apache ask a debconf question. > > mldonkey-server/mldonkey_umask (could be set to 0022) > > Well, this one is really optional! OK, then please remove it :-) > > IMHO these should be removed as well (just my 2 cents), because there is > > the mldonkey very own configuration program for this (web ui, gtk or > > ...). Amule or nicotine also do not come with such questions: > > FYI: i never use amule/nicotine and i don't know how they work/what > debconf question they are asking. > > Amule and nicotine are GUI clientis, they required to be run as user > running X window. MLDonkey is a daemon running in background. Amule is the linux equivalent of emule (GUI), nicotine is a gtk-soulseek client (very similar to the windows soulseek client). I use both. None of them ask debconf questions because, you can set these things up yourself in their settings. One can do the same for mldonkey-server using its configuration setup, either by means of telnet, the web ui or the gtk. Whatever way a user prefers to contact the daemon. I do not understand why you ask questions, that belong the mldonkey's daemon settings section. I mean, if you ask for the client name, upload rate etc., why don't you also ask for the port that should be used? It would be easier, if a user should/would have to use the mldonkey-server own settings configuration (via telnet, web ui or gui), because this is also the it is explained in the forums and the mldonkey faq. > I do > really thinks that installing gedit doesn't require to answer 10 debconf > questions but i don't think that needing to answer 5 questions for > installing openldap/exim4/ntpd is really so hard. For exim4 etc. it is ok, but in this case, imho it is unnessary. Have a look at the forums, all Suse/Redhat/Mac/windows/whatever users feel fine to set up the max_upload/which_dirs_to_share/etc. themselves using the way mentioned in the faq/forums, i.e. to use telnet/web ui/gui/manually edit *.ini/whatever. > > MLDonkey is not a GUI, it requires configuration as a daemon. I can be configured using telnet/web ui. Even if there is debconf, one still has to input something to the daemon. Otherwise one cannot search/download for files. And if one has to connect to the daemon, one can also setup the configuration the way it is designed by upstream. > Mldonkey-gui is a GUI and you don't have to answer any debconf questions > for it (as for amule). Amule bundles a gui and daemon (technically not 100% right), as does nicotine, still they ask no questions on e.g. max_upload. > > > mldonkey-server/client_name > > mldonkey-server/plugin > > OK for this two: they are optional. OK, Please remove them. Save me and ten other translator quite some time ;-) > > > mldonkey-server/max_hard_upload_rate > > mldonkey-server/max_hard_download_rate > > There is no sane default: > if i set it to 0 (no limit), it can block the internet access (well you > can say that TCP can manage the flow control...). If i set to something > small (1), a lot of user will come and ask me why mldonkey is so slow > (not everybody read README file). I cannot guess if the user got > 56k/ADSL/T1 connection, so i really don't know what should be the good > rate... There is also no sane default for amule/xmule/nicotine/gtk-gnutella/limewire. The user eithers knows how to use the program's configuration settings. Or reads the faq/forums on how to do it the way the upstream has thought of setting the max_upload. > > This could be removed as well after the group/user settings are fixed: > > mldonkey-server/reown_file > > > > Do you agree? > > See above, i agree on 3 options. But i am still wondering, since > priority has been changed, what is the problem with asking questions ? ( > i don't remember exactly but i think i manage to drop the number of > question when only following medium questions to 5). So you somewhat agreed, that the questions are unnecessary for most users. I would say they are for all, because there are better ways to fix the oddness of some users (like vfat mounting or strange file system layout; see above for better ways the users should go if they decide to do strange things). > Debconf questions have been really a long problem: people ask for more > settings/people ask for less settings. I don't know what to choose (and > it is hard to choose). The people who ask do not know about the upstream way on setting things up. They want a debconf question for the port/chat_settings/etc, they should read the faq on mldonkey.org. > Please, tell me why you are so keen on removing debconf questions ? I hope I could :-) HAND, Jens -- jabber-chat: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpPncs3ZNCyt.pgp
Description: PGP signature