Re: policy changes toward Non-Interactive installation
Joey Hess <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Right. I just do nt see these invariants being very useful. I
> > would much rather have a mk-realplayer package that helps me create a
> > realplayer-blah.deb; and the invariants are then natural and not
> > artificially imposed. When that realplayer.deb is installed,
> > realplayer is installed (duh), and the version of that package tells
> > me what version I have installed.
> > I can then move the .deb to my local apt-able tree, and all
> > other machines in my environemnt can just install this.
> > the ml-realplayer does not have to be upgrade every time
> > realplayer changes. I can install an older verison of real player if
> > I wish (getting it off a CD, or something).
> Well I for one find being able to make sure I am upgraded to the current
> version is very useful, especially given the historical buginess of
Why not just ask in the preinst whether to update or not and provide a
script to do so later as well.
Also all information needed for downloading could be asked in the
preinst as well or not? (Never used that package)
> > Joey> If you don't want to download realplayer right now, why are you
> > Joey> installing the package?
> > It is not useful hectoring the user when they report a
> > percieved problem.
> I'm not hectoring, I'm asking a question. That is why my sentence ended
> with a question mark.
A good example for this are the xanim modules. The packages asks
whether to downlaod or not and one can start installing the modules at
any time as well.
May the Source be with you.