Re: (proposed) Mass bug filing for debconf "abuse" by using low|medium priority debconf notes?

[Nathanael Nerode <neroden@fastmail.fm>]

Joey Hess wrote:

> Christian Perrier wrote:
>> In short, a note should only be used for IMPORTANT stuff, so actually
>> all debconf notes should be priority high....or 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.

Frankly, the kernel's "You NEED to restart your computer SOON" message is
a good example, if it's telling the truth.  But that cheats by not using 
debconf.

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.

Upgrades from really-messed-up versions may also require people to do
something manually to clean up from the messed-up version.

-- 
Nathanael Nerode  <neroden@fastmail.fm>

Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...