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

Re: Debconf or not debconf : Conclusion

On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:18:33AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On a separate but related topic, I think a much better approach would
> be to handle configuration as a step entirely separate from the
> install phase.  Let the install be entirely quiet, and let packages
> have intelligent defaults.  If the package absolutely must be
> configured before it can be used, then let it be non-functional until
> someone actually calls dpkg-configure (which would be just like
> dpkg-reconfigure except that's the only time the questions would be
> asked).

I don't see how this would be much of an improvement.  While I agree
that packages for which intelligent defaults are possible should simply
ship with those defaults set, there are enough packages that don't have
sensible defaults to make debconf a good idea.  If dpkg-configure is
called separately, how does the admin know when there are packages for
which it should be called?  And if the admin is automatically notified
of this, why is this better than simply calling dpkg-configure then and

Although debconf notes are frequently abused, I haven't given up hope
that current problems with other uses of debconf will sort themselves
out as the techniques and rules become more familiar to maintainers.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpfBpjyt9m7O.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: