On Sat Apr 19, 11:18am -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: > On 19-Apr-03, 06:47 (CDT), Steve Kowalik <email@example.com> wrote: > > At 7:22 pm, Saturday, April 19 2003, Denis Barbier mumbled: > > > I do not understand exactly what is good and bad use of debconf. > > > For instance all questions asked by the debconf package have good default > > > values, so there is no reason to prompt user, a configuration file is > > > enough. So what am I missing? > > > > > Well, not all use of debconf is bad. For example, libnet-perl is a terrible > > misuse of debconf, *but* it can be remedied by dropping the priority of the > > questions from medium to low. > > Huh? If all the questions it asks can be converted to priority low, then > that means there are reasonable defaults, and therefore IT SHOULDN'T BE > USING DEBCONF AT ALL. > > How hard is this? What is so unclear about Policy on this topic? From debconf-devel(8): "low: Very trivial items that have defaults that will work in the vast majority of cases; oinly control freaks see these."
Description: PGP signature