On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 11:34:11AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > * Steve Kemp > > | On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 08:20:08AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > | > | > what's wrong with a low-priority debconf question with a sane default? > | > | Absolutely nothing at all, but it's a slippery slope, and I thought > | we were tending towards less interactivity in installations? > > which is why I said «low priority»: > > 'critical' only prompts you if the system might break. > Pick it if you are a newbie, or in a hurry. > 'high' is for rather important questions > 'medium' is for normal questions > 'low' is for control freaks who want to see everything > > If you select low, you will have to drink off the fire hose. Having > low-priority questionsis good, since it makes it easy to make > customized installs with preloaded answers. The only question I would have about it is that every potentially-sgid game package would need to share the question (so that it only got asked once, but was available whenever needed) - organizing that could be a bit tricky, I would think. Certainly I think it would be one of the more reasonable uses of shared debconf stuff - one question, low priority, a sane default of not being sgid, and assuming packages used something proper (er, dpkg-statoverride?) to register the sgid bit, it doesn't matter if you blow away the answer cache - you can look at the existing state and find out what you need to know (or, presumably, override it). -- Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org>
Attachment:
pgpzoSkDKH_l0.pgp
Description: PGP signature