Bug#592032: [pkg-fso-maint] Bug#592032: please increase the priority of the nodm/enabled debconf question to high
Excerpts from Enrico Zini's message of Son Aug 08 05:16:04 -0400 2010: On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 09:04:14PM -0400, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: Currently the debconf question about enabling nodm is only shown at medium priority. This means that it will not be shown by default. Thibaut Girka, my GSoC student, is currently preparing a smartphone task which will include nodm. On smartphones the users most probably want to enable nodm. Therefore this question should be shown on default priority installs. I think the question should not only have priority high for smartphones but for all installations. I already think it's kind of strange to not enable a package by default, although I understand the reasons for doing it the way it currently is. But if a user installs nodm in most cases he also wants to run it. Therefore he should at least be given to open to enable it at install time. Right. Thanks for opening this, the issue is indeed up for discussion. The original idea was that nodm would be turned on via debconf preseeding. Ideally a foo task should be able to preseed custom debconf defaults for packages, at least at installer time. AFAIK there is currently no easy facility available to do task specific preseeding in tasksel. At least I did not find any information or and example on how to do it. Preseeding is possible in the preseeding file that is used by d-i to configure network the network. But adding task specific information there seems wrong to me. A user might well choose to not install the smartphone task and if in a later stage we get the graphical installer working on the freerunner, no preseeding is necessary anymore. I also want to avoid nodm's questions to appear in preconfigured installation tasks; that is, I'd like to avoid that when the debian freerunner installer runs it gets stopped by nodm asking the debconf question at a higher priority. That's a valid concern. The only option to do this without preseeding is to have the question defaulting to yes (at least on the freerunner). I guess most custom installers that make use of preseeding are going to run at priority critical so are not affected by questions at priority high, so that is a non-issue. And it's probably fair that if someone installs nodm by hand gets asked the tricky question of whether to run it. With this in mind, I am fine going both ways: I am mostly writing this to make sure you know of the background thoughts so far. If you tell me it does indeed make sense to have it at high, I'll prepare a new upload asap. If there is a facility to do task specific preseeding I'm fine with the current state. If not I'd prefer the question to be of priority high and with a default of yes for now. Gaudenz -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#592032: [pkg-fso-maint] Bug#592032: please increase the priority of the nodm/enabled debconf question to high
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 09:04:14PM -0400, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: Currently the debconf question about enabling nodm is only shown at medium priority. This means that it will not be shown by default. Thibaut Girka, my GSoC student, is currently preparing a smartphone task which will include nodm. On smartphones the users most probably want to enable nodm. Therefore this question should be shown on default priority installs. I think the question should not only have priority high for smartphones but for all installations. I already think it's kind of strange to not enable a package by default, although I understand the reasons for doing it the way it currently is. But if a user installs nodm in most cases he also wants to run it. Therefore he should at least be given to open to enable it at install time. Right. Thanks for opening this, the issue is indeed up for discussion. The original idea was that nodm would be turned on via debconf preseeding. Ideally a foo task should be able to preseed custom debconf defaults for packages, at least at installer time. This at least was the original idea :) I also want to avoid nodm's questions to appear in preconfigured installation tasks; that is, I'd like to avoid that when the debian freerunner installer runs it gets stopped by nodm asking the debconf question at a higher priority. I guess most custom installers that make use of preseeding are going to run at priority critical so are not affected by questions at priority high, so that is a non-issue. And it's probably fair that if someone installs nodm by hand gets asked the tricky question of whether to run it. With this in mind, I am fine going both ways: I am mostly writing this to make sure you know of the background thoughts so far. If you tell me it does indeed make sense to have it at high, I'll prepare a new upload asap. Ciao, Enrico -- GPG key: 4096R/E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini enr...@enricozini.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#592032: please increase the priority of the nodm/enabled debconf question to high
Package: nodm Severity: minor Hi Currently the debconf question about enabling nodm is only shown at medium priority. This means that it will not be shown by default. Thibaut Girka, my GSoC student, is currently preparing a smartphone task which will include nodm. On smartphones the users most probably want to enable nodm. Therefore this question should be shown on default priority installs. I think the question should not only have priority high for smartphones but for all installations. I already think it's kind of strange to not enable a package by default, although I understand the reasons for doing it the way it currently is. But if a user installs nodm in most cases he also wants to run it. Therefore he should at least be given to open to enable it at install time. Gaudenz -- System Information: Debian Release: squeeze/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (800, 'testing'), (700, 'unstable'), (50, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=de_CH.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_CH.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
