Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > It feels a bit counter-productive when we in the Skolelinux project > spend lots of time trying to convince Debian package maintainers to > add support for package configuration using pre-seeding of debconf > answers, and then experience that the next maintainer of the same > package consider this a waste and throw out the code. Given that you essentially ask to reinstate behavior that is relatively widely considered a bug, and that this has been stated in the NTP thread, why do you need to picture the situation as lack of support for CDDs? AFAICT debconf is intended and presently advocated as a way to prompt for defaults if they are absolutely needed. Specifically, it is not intended as a way to store stuff. How does your request correspond with the "debconf is not a registry" mantra? Basically you seem to be advocating what many people have called debconf abuse. This is no critique of the technical merits of your request, but if you wish to keep debconf questions like the NTP one you need to advocate changing the paradigm of debconf use. One of the obvious things that got asked multiple but that none of the 'keep debconf promt'ers answered is: Why is it critical for you to have these defaults done with debconf as opposed to customizing config files? Kind regards Thomas -- Thomas Viehmann, <http://beamnet.de/tv/>
Attachment:
pgpNi9D8qCgE0.pgp
Description: PGP signature