Re: goals for woody ? (Re: Release Date of Woody?)
>>"Joey" == Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> writes:
Joey> Even though I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusions, your
Joey> logic escapes me. You seem to be saying that:
Joey> * postinst scripts need to be able to ask questions
Joey> * thus, debconf cannot be mandatory
I should not be posting when so sleep deprived. The missing
part are:
a) the rationale that is some times given for debconf is that it
would enable an unattended install, (since unattended installs are
a high priority item, the reasoning goes, and if debconf can allow
us to attain that, then debconf must be made mandatory)
b) I am not sure debconf penetration is at a level where we can
safely mandate debconf; laudable though the package is.
I was mixing up these (orthogonal) issues in my rambling and
slightly incoherent post.
manoj
about a week behind in sleep
--
I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm
frightened of the old ones. John Cage
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: