On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 07:43:09PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Of course it would, and I would never recommend doing so. > > So instead you're recommending an approach that forces the user to > choose *before* reconfiguring between > a) not being told what the maintainer thought was a sensible default > b) not being told how he has currently configured the package > > I don't see why that would help anyone.
You aren't making sense. You said that the problem was that the user wanted the safe defaults and couldn't tell what they were. I provided an idea for a solution, which was to give the user an option to forget their current configuration and confirm the safe defaults. Now you're complaining that the user has too much choice. > Which is not terribly helpful to a user who wants to make an informed > choice *between* the safe default and his own prior customizations. Writing a paragraph of text attempting to tell the user what the safe default is, without making reference to any UI-specific widgets, is a waste of time and space. Changing the debconf interface for the purpose of creating a horrific UI which attempts to present the user with three sets of options for each possible question would be equally silly. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]