On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 09:02:19PM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote: > >Um, no. *Policy* says that it may not be used as a registry. > [SNIPPED LONG DIATRIBE THAT DOES NOT PROVE THE ABOVE STATEMENT] > Sure, you delete the registry things should still work. Did I say anything > different? You are making a long tenuous link to prove your point which I > don't subscribe to. Unless we have a formal definition of 'registry' in > policy as well we can argue this forever as to what is the right way to view > it. Perhaps not taking a Windows centric view would help? "Windows-centric"? FFS, where do you think the term "registry" /comes/ from? "Yes, policy doesn't say anything that prevents using debconf as a registry, because I have a definition of registry that only I know and which I guarantee you is allowed by policy." Harumph. In all the stupid flame wars I've seen about debconf, you're the first person I've ever met who was unable to grasp the use of the word "registry". >>I'm not sure why you think Joey's expertise doesn't qualify him to make >>pronouncements about the use of debconf. Unlike you, he at least gets >>the answer right. > Well I don't agree on the right answer bit That, and a few other things, have been made very clear. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpNo3l9JrTP0.pgp
Description: PGP signature