Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > OK, here's a slightly different proposal for how to handle "fset seen" stuff > (there is code in d-i ATM that just does "fset seen false" on a question > before asking it, which is very very bad in an automated install...): > > If "seen=true", then simply lower the priority one notch before deciding to > ask the question. (critical -> high, high -> medium, medium -> low, low stays > at low.) That way, the user won't be bothered with asking a question twice, > _unless_ something goes wrong, in which case the debconf priority will be > lowered and the question will be asked anyway. (If the question is critical > and the user has his/her priority at high, it will still be asked, but I > think that's OK.) If nothing goes wrong, it seems rather unlikely that the > same question will be asked twice anyhow, so I don't see that it should blow > up in that case :-) > > Does this make sense to anybody but me? :-) I would be very leery of making changes of this magnatude to the debconf protocol, especialy since the installer already changes the debconf/priority level on the fly. I think it would be better to have a noninteractive frontend and a means of switching to a different frontend if something goes wrong. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature