Previously Kristoffer.Rose@ENS-Lyon.FR wrote: > Yes, indeed, they are good reading and I have read these and others before > them. And they are all *way* to complicated for my taste and *way* to > difficult to enforce as a "standard" any time soon. Just as apt was not ready `anyway soon' when work on that started. What we should be focusing on here is a flexible system that we can use 5 years from now. If that takes months of designing and another couple of months implementation, so be it. Raphael wrote: > > The problem is that this difference between non-interactive configuration > > and interactive configuration has no sense. For one package, it will be > > configured after the non-interactive one, for the other it will be after > > the interactive one. It has sense it that you need to know it to recover from errors. In this state you have told dpkg (well, not really dpkg) how you would like to configure the package, but the actual work hasn't been done yet (the postinst does that). > > I think there's no need to have two postint, but I have already suggested > > that we should have a "preconfigure" script that "could" be run in order > > to pre-answer the questions that the postinst might ask. pre-answer? Are you meaning setting defaults? You can also change defaults in the interactive-config stage. > Preconfiguration is difficult. It is error-prone. It requires new code > and possibly even hairier things (like Configure-Depends: etc.). Don't configure something when a dependency hasn't been met. That is the only way. > KISS: we can have this in potato. potato is way too soon. I think one or two releases after potato at best. Wichert. -- ============================================================================== This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman. E-Mail: wakkerma@cs.leidenuniv.nl WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/
Attachment:
pgppKCmyhA7gP.pgp
Description: PGP signature