Russ Allbery wrote: > I hate to say this, since actually implementing it is a lot of work in > supporting programs like debhelper, but if the debconf-2.0 pseudopackage > was introduced prior to a new feature in the debconf interface there needs > to be a debconf-2.1 or debconf-3.0 as well. If cdebconf implements that > protocol, it can provide that pseudopackage as well. Any later version 2.x of the debconf protocol is intended to be backwards compatible with 2.0. In practice, new commands such as SETTITLE and the PROGRESS stuff can be added to the protocol without increasing the version number since earlier versions of debconf can skip doing anything for these commands with no undue effects (although if you want this to work, you'll need to || true your db_settitle commands in a shell script). The CAPB interface also allows for larger change to the protocol without increasing the version number. I wouldn't object to a version 2.1 being added to the protocol, but getting anything into the policy manual has become to much of a pain for me to bother with myself. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature