On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 02:20:00AM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote: > * Matt Zimmerman > > > As was explained in detail, in order to do anything useful with that > > information, it is necessary to be able to show the user the proposed > > changes to the configuration file. It is completely unhelpful to say: > > > > "You have modified this configuration file, and it has also been updated > > by the package maintainer. Do you want to replace it with the version > > provided by the package maintainer?" > > > > Without showing the user the new version. > > Of course, this question will be shown in the postinst, if the generated > file differs from the previously generated one and the user has modified > the one in /etc.
Yes, and this was the main question that I brought up at the end of my original message: is it worth sacrificing preconfiguration, or is there a better way? So far, there is no clear consensus. > I see your problem when you insist on asking on asking all questions at > the configure stage -- personally, I don't think delaying the actual > generating of the configuration file (and asking the question about > overwriting the old file) to the postinst stage is *that* bad. This is the sort of input that I was soliciting. Personally, I think that preconfiguration is very important, since it _greatly_ simplifies initial installation and upgrades (where a large number of questions are asked) and allows the rest of the installation to proceed unattended in the absence of errors. -- - mdz