On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 12:01:30AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > > I've heard the criticism before that many packages seem to ask all > > questions at priority high, and there seems to be some truth to this.[1] > I have been worried about priority inflation for a while. How about I > make debconf actually display somehow what priorities it is asking a > question at? This would at least make it obvious when > insiginificat-package uses priority critical to display the > insignificant-package/should-be-in-readme-debian note. I'm not quite > sure how to fit that into all the UIs though. Yes, I thought it might be an aid to developers, if the version of debconf in testing/unstable displayed this information. Even if just a few of the most commonly used UIs supported it, I'm sure we'd start to see the benefits. Another thing that I feel is missing is a set of clear guidelines describing how each of the debconf priorities should be used. I have my own ideas about this, which may or may not agree with the ideas of the debconf author and certainly don't agree with current practices within Debian. If such a set of guidelines does exist, clearly I'm unaware of their existence -- which means, IMHO, that they haven't been announced as prominently as they should be. > This doesn't even happen anymore; debconf is now installed by > debootstrap as part of base, and so its configuration is never displayed > to the user; you just get medium. If you have set up the boot floppies > to work in "quiet" mode (via some hard to find switch which I forget), > you get priority critical instead; if you make the boot floppies enter > "verbose" mode, you get low priority. So, the correct approach for someone wishing to target a large number of novice users with Woody would be to set this to "high" in the installer configuration? Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgp7lWYgaQy9h.pgp
Description: PGP signature