[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#5217: idled defaults are very aggressive

'Christoph Lameter wrote:'
>On 1 Nov 1996 rdm@tad.micro.umn.edu 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 >
>rdm >There's a number of potential gotchas with idled.
>rdm >
>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
cjf@netaxs.com, cjf@onit.net       |    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

Reply to: