I'm on the record as wishing we could rip out this whole terminology of "low priority installs" and start again with something else (Bug#796662), but at least here it is in principle possible for it to make sense...
Ben Hutchings wrote: > Holger Wansing wrote: >> I would propose to simplify/improve that like this: > > I would suggest using consistently "question" instead of "item", and > avoiding "reasonable default" as I'm not sure how widely that term is > understood: > >> You can select the priority of question you want to see: >> - 'critical': you will only see items that will probably break the system >> without user intervention. > > "only questions that are essential for a successful installation" >> - 'high': items are shown, that don't have reasonable defaults, additionally >> to those from critical. > > "also questions for which the default often needs to be changed" > >> - 'medium': also show normal items that have reasonable defaults. > > "also questions for which the default sometimes needs to be changed" > > > - 'low': even show trivial items that have defaults which will work in > > the vast majority of cases. > [...] > > "all questions, even if the default only rarely needs to be changed" In other words You can select the priority of question you want to see: - 'critical': only questions that are essential for a successful installation - 'high': also questions for which the default often needs to be changed - 'medium': also questions for which the default sometimes needs to be changed - 'low': all questions, even if the default only rarely needs to be changed Or perhaps putting some words back in: Please select the questions you want to be shown by priority level: * "critical": only show questions that are essential for a successful installation; * "high": also show questions for which the default often needs to be changed; * "medium": also show questions for which the default sometimes needs to be changed; * "low": show all questions, even if the default only rarely needs to be changed. Some alternatives that people might like more than I do: Please select the cutoff level for questions that you want to be asked: * "critical": only show questions that always require user attention; * "high": also show ones for which the default often needs changing; * "medium": also show ones for which the default sometimes needs changing; * "low": show all questions, even if the default only rarely needs changing. >> "For example, this question is of medium priority, and if your priority were >> " >> "already 'high' or 'critical', you wouldn't see this question." >> [...] >> For example, this question is of medium priority, and if your actual priority >> would be 'high' or 'critical', you wouldn't see this question. (I think that's a false-friend use of "actual". and it's definitely an unidiomatic "would", though personally I wouldn't use "were" either.) I don't like this idea that it's "my" priority that's "high". It isn't even the installer's priority - it's the degree of filtering applied to questions in *terms* of priority, and that's a horrible thing to have to explain concisely. Maybe we can just say: For example, this question is of medium priority, so if you had chosen to see only questions of 'high' or 'critical' priority, it wouldn't be shown. -- JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package