Well, after "discussing" with aj for a while, he had the following comment about the cdebconf progress bar API: "it sucks" ;-) Myself, I am of the opinion that it was a bad idea not to look at what debootstrap and b-f use, when designing the API. Short summary: cdebconf progress bars: progress start <min> <max> <title> progress step <inc> <info> progress stop debootstrap: P: <curr> <max> <title> I: <info> This is very incompatible, especially since the cdebconf way means that <inc> is added *after* the <info> is displayed. I hacked around this in debootstrap to add a --debian-installer flag but aj thought it was much too horrible to include. I agree with him, though I wish he'd said it before I spent the hours doing this. Someone bloody well owes me a beer! ;) Thus, I suggest we change the API for cdebconf progress bar to match what b-f and debootstrap use. Something like: progress start (can still use this one, and it makes sense) progress step <inc> (or progress set <val>) progress info <info> progress stop This means that when we (i.e. Thorsten in cdrom-checker and I in anna) used progress step 1 some/template <do something> we should instead use progress info some/template <do something> progress inc 1 which is much more compatible with debootstrap and it still makes sense. Comments? tausq? /M
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Detta =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E4r?= en digitalt signerad meddelandedel