On 18 March 2013 18:56, Serafeim Zanikolas <s...@debian.org> wrote: > No doubt the current behaviour of noop is not doing apt-listbugs justice. > I agree that debconf is generally the best way to handle a situation where > terminal interaction may or may not be possible. > > But as far as I understand, debconf could only be used to set/retrieve a > generic > policy decision: whether and at what level of severity should packages be > pin'ed, right? If that is so, then debconf can not support the current > granularity of user interaction: ie. I want to pin this and that package and > I'm OK upgrading this other one. > > If I understand correctly, debconf can only be used with predefined templates, > thus predefined generic policy questions (as opposed to questions that can be > different on every invocation).
Yes, the templates are predefined, but the questions are not. A question is a template with potentially some substitutions made. The substitutions can be arbitrary, including multi-line strings, and there should be little if any flexability lost. Effectively it is no different to printf type string templates, coupled with pre-determined responses (such as, what action to take for pkg X with bugs Y). > > If that is so, then debconf would be an improvement over the current noop, but > would still leave something be desired. The context for scripts in Pre-Install-Pkgs implies several restrictions that the current apt-listbugs interface takes liberties with. To seriously address this involves numerous compromises and limitations being imposed on the interface, at least when called via the Apt hook. Anyway, the direction is clear so lets see when work begins. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
