On 20-May-07, 04:08 (CDT), martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> also sprach Gabor Gombas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.05.19.1832 +0200]:
> > > Come on. `useless debconf proliferation'? The question has medium
> > > priority. I can also make it an configration option somewhere and use
> > > that, but it was just a convenient why to get info from a user.
> >
> > I'd also say a debconf question is overkill. People who understand what
> > the option means can edit a config file by hand.
>
> They can set their debconf priority. It's not something to avoid,
> adding debconf questions.
Yes, it is. Every question you ask is something more to
confuse/distract/annoy a user. Debconf was *supposed* to be only for
things for which there is no reasonable default. This is not one of
those things. Certainly not at medium priority.
Additionally, debconf breaks dpkg conffile handling -- if a setting is
in debconf, the file can't be a conffile.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
