Re: (proposed) Mass bug fil ing for debcon f abuse by using low|medium priority debconf notes?
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:36:11AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Christian Perrier wrote: In short, a note should only be used for IMPORTANT stuff, so actually all debconf notes should be priority highor should not exist! It's better to simply remove them all: If it's an error, use the new error data type, which will always be displayed no matter the priority. If it's not an error, put it in NEWS.Debian, README.Debian, etc. The only thing stopping me from making debconf notes a no-op is the note in d-i's nobootloader, which is a fairly legitimate note (not error), that can't really be put anywhere else, and possibly the partman help note (though noone reads that note). Hmm. Any time a package has to tell the user You need to do something manually. It's not being done automatically because we haven't figured out how to do that, but it's really really important to do it manually -- then a high-priority debconf note is appropriate. Not according to the designer of debconf. There are other mechanisms that are more appropriate than interrupting the install with this information, such as using NEWS.Debian. The current limitation is that NEWS.Debian doesn't have i18n support; I had hoped to work on this for etch, but time got away from me. But certainly, apt-listchanges should at this point be getting installed by default on new systems. Upgrades which require programs to be restarted should do it automatically. But if for some obscure reason they can't, then a high-priority note is reasonable. If this obscure reason always applies, then that's better put in NEWS.Debian. If the obscure reason is that the maintainer script tried to do the automatic restart but failed, a debconf error message would certainly be reasonable. Upgrades from really-messed-up versions may also require people to do something manually to clean up from the messed-up version. In that case you only want to bother the folks who had the really messed-up version installed, so a conditional note also seems appropriate, yes. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (proposed) Mass bug fil ing for debcon f abuse by using low|medium priority debconf notes?
On Sep 14, Christian Perrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Before launching a mass bug-filing campaign, I would like to get fellow developers opinions. Would there be important objections to such a campaign targeting first all packages using notes at low priority, then those using notes at medium priority? Not from me, I like your idea. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: (proposed) Mass bug fil ing for debcon f abuse by using low|medium priority debconf notes?
Christian Perrier wrote: In short, a note should only be used for IMPORTANT stuff, so actually all debconf notes should be priority highor should not exist! It's better to simply remove them all: If it's an error, use the new error data type, which will always be displayed no matter the priority. If it's not an error, put it in NEWS.Debian, README.Debian, etc. The only thing stopping me from making debconf notes a no-op is the note in d-i's nobootloader, which is a fairly legitimate note (not error), that can't really be put anywhere else, and possibly the partman help note (though noone reads that note). -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: (proposed) Mass bug fil ing for debcon f abuse by using low|medium priority debconf notes?
Christian Perrier wrote: I indeed had a brief talk with Javier FS at the Extremadura meeting and he had an argument *for* the debconf note: it is optionnally mailed to the local sysadmin Mailing of debconf notes was disabled a while ago. and being a debconf note, it can be localized. True. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: (proposed) Mass bug fil ing for debcon f abuse by using low|medium priority debconf notes?
On Thu, 2006-09-14 at 19:41:53 +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: As a conclusion and combining both, I would really like to unsderstand why so many fellow developers insist on using LOW priority NOTES in their debconf templates and use them in maintainer scripts. Packages with low priority debconf notes: - Guillem Jover [EMAIL PROTECTED] fbset -- config:16 fbset/create_framebuffer_devices As Mark Brown, I did that following the policy. I don't have any problem removing it, but would be nice to get the policy fixed. xfstt -- config:13 xfstt/default_port_changed Fixed in incoming. Packages with medium priority debconf notes: Guillem Jover [EMAIL PROTECTED] bochs -- config:10 bochs/bochsrc Will be fixed with next upload. regards, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
