On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 12:59:27PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >>>>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2003 12:22:31 -0400, > >>>>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > In my first message, I listed bullet points for goals, most of > > which ucf meets, and then outlined the problems with this model, > > and linked to previous threads discussing them in detail. > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200304/msg01320.html > > From my reading of that message, about the only thing that is > missing is using debconf to ask the questions. Have I missed > anything? (I must confess I only skimmed the first few layers of the > message tree you pointed to as references; from my memory of those > discussions, there was little new, and the consensus seemed to have > been reached for post-inst prompting).
Yes, debconf would seem to be the only item in that list that ucf does not implement, now that the three-way option is documented in 0.12 (18 Apr). > Using debconf is on the TODO list for ucf, and perhaps a > rewrite of the current prototype in C for speed later down the line. ucf still has the same fundamental problem with regard to preconfiguration, which was the primary issue that I raised in my original message. The consensus, as I recall, was that preconfiguration is important, and that prompting in postinst should be minimized. If such a system is to be used for a large number of packaging, this would mean moving a large number of prompts into postinst, which I think is undesirable. -- - mdz
