On Thursday 19 June 2008, Joey Hess wrote: > Even that could diverge slightly from debconf: If two questions are to > be asked, the second is a noninteractive select, and the user backs up > from the first, debconf will not change the value of the noninteractive > select, while cdebconf would. > > (It could instead handle the noninteractive questions only if the user > didn't back up, but that would just make it instead differ in the case > where the noninteractive question is first, and the user backs up from > the second question.) > > I think this would be a small enough difference, in an area that is > not well specified, that it would be acceptable though, unlike the > current glaring difference.. As backing up basically translates to either "I'll come back to this later" or to "the values are of no interest to me", I think that is acceptable. From a D-I PoV I do not think it really matters which of the two alternatives for divergence are chosen. For regular debconf use for package configuration I can see a slight argument for leaving things unset, i.e. preferring your alternative approach. Question: what does debconf do if there has never been a db_input? I.e. if you do just 'db_subst' directly followed by 'db_get'. Does it then also return "first in list" or the default or what? We could still have a divergence there I think. On Friday 20 June 2008, Joey Hess wrote: > Attached patch seems to work (mirror works in auto mode), and the small > test suite I added shows it does the right thing in all 4 cases. > > Could use some more testing, I see no problems with the patch. Have also tested that using Go Back around a seen template still works correctly. > and my caveats about this being a hacky and suboptimal approach still > apply. Sorry, can't really help with that :-/ Again thanks for picking up the issue.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.