On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 12:18:30PM +0200, Thomas -Balu- Walter wrote: > On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 11:01:29AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: > > Please undo that, either generate the devices[1] or don't but don't add > > another debconf question just because you can. > > Rule of the thumb: *Only* ask if there is no sane default. > The problem is that there is no sane default IMHO... :) > As I've stated in the debconf-question you can but don't have to use the > video devices as input to camsource. > So my thinking is: Should I create devices even if users > doesn't want/need them? And: Are most users going to choose "yes" as > they need the package or is the number of "no"-choosers high enough to > justify the debconf-question?
I think you are being too cautious. A couple of device-nodes is no big deal, we aren't talking about tens of kilobytes of wasted diskspace or big fat dependencies. > I'd also have to depend on makedev then, which adds an unneeded > dependancy in case the user doesn't want to use v4l and extends the > users opinion to "This tool not only installs unnecessary devices but > also needs additional software to do so. Why doesn't the maintainer ask > me first?". :) You'll need to depend on makedev even if you generate the devices only conditionally, ... unless you jump through hoops like this one: > It only asks if no devfs is used and no video devices are there. > Then you have two qestions: > If no makedev is there - display the info that you might need the devices > and have to install makedev to be able to create them. > If makedev is installed - ask wether to install the devices or not. [...] That is just too complicated to sidestep a dependency on a microscopic package that you'll find on practically all Debian installations anyway because it has huge reverse-depends. cu andreas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]