Bug#219888: anna: Give the user full control of modules to be installed
On Mon, 2003-11-10 at 16:07, Jeremie Koenig wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 08:37:30AM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> > IMHO it would be better to simply have the current behaviour on priority
> > medium and your new "full control" behaviour on priority low. I don't
> > see the point of choosing the mode in priority low because if the user
> > chooses to run at this priority he already has told d-i that he wants
> > full control.
>
> I thought about this, but changing the question depending on the debconf
> priority (which is supposed to control which questions are shown,
> nothing more) seemed to be a dirty hack.
It does not seem so to me. From a usability point of view it's the best
solution IMHO. Having more choices in a select list at lower priority
seems like a natural extension of the debconf priority concept to me.
>
> Here are the big problems to be solved with this piece of code :
> - The user must be warned (even at priority=low, IMHO) that he risks
> to break things if he deselects things, but only if he's offered
> the opportunity to do so.
This could be aranged with a note at priority low just before the udeb
list. Indeed it would be nice to have a warning, but I don't think it's
a big problem, because the user can go back and reselect the deselected
module anyway at priority low.
> - It's quite hard to write a long description for
> anna/choose-modules which works in both cases.
ACK.
> - We shouldn't break automatic installs, when the debconf DB already
> has values.
I don't see how my suggestion would break automatic installs. Just
prefill the value of anna/choose_modules and set the question to seen
and you should have full control over which udebs get installed.
>
> Using an additional template, its answer is stored in the DB, so if you
> need to deselect modules in an automatic install, you can do so with
> preloaded values even at priority=critical.
>
> I'm just thinking of another way :
> - Use two alternative anna/choose_modules, one for limited control,
> one for full control. (fixes the description problem and the warn
> problem)
> - Use yet another question, _not to be shown_, for which one to
> choose. If not yet seen when we need its value, set its value
> depending on the debconf priority. (fix the automatic install
> problem, since the question to ask will be recorded in debconf's
> database).
This would also be possible, but I don't see why it should be needed. If
you prefer to do it that why, I don't object. My primary concern was
about the user-interface.
>
> Do I just code it ? Ideas, anyone ?
>
> BTW: can I use a substitution for the Default: field, rather than
> setting the value before the qustion is shown ?
I don't know.
gaudenz
Reply to: