Re: Bug#5217: idled defaults are very aggressive
'Christoph Lameter wrote:'
>On 1 Nov 1996 email@example.com wrote:
>rdm >> idled does not support the linux concept of multiple consoles. But you can
>rdm >> specify ttynames to be exempt. The next release will add exemptions for
>rdm >> the linux console tty's to the configuration. Be sure to let it update you
>rdm >> config file.
>rdm >There's a number of potential gotchas with idled.
>rdm >Why can't it have a neutral configuration (like the quotas package),
>rdm >for its default configuration?
>Because the way it is right now is optimal. I hate packages asking
>unnecessary questions and dealing with complicated scripts.
>If you want to customize the behavior of idled then read the
I think the optimal way is to provide a neutral configuration. I hate
getting unexpected behavior from packages that assume too much. And I
might be installing the package to read the documentation. I'd prefer
my first experience with the package to /not/ involve putting out its
fires. If necessary, use a question in the postinst "Should I make
idled active [Y/n]". Then remember the answer somewhere (or check the
command line parameter dpkg passes to the postrm so that upgrades don't
ask the questions). I agree that complicated scripts cause even more
problems. But the simple script is not too hard to write!
Christopher J. Fearnley | Linux/Internet Consulting
firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com | UNIX SIG Leader at PACS
http://www.netaxs.com/~cjf | (Philadelphia Area Computer Society)
ftp://ftp.netaxs.com/people/cjf | Design Science Revolutionary
"Dare to be Naive" -- Bucky Fuller | Explorer in Universe
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com