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

Re: How come X seems insistent on managing my XF86Config now?

[CCing debian-x because if I get hit by a bus or arrested by Secretary
Ashcroft today, the following will be important for the inheritor of our
XFree86 packages to know.]

On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 12:20:01AM -0400, Greg Stark wrote:
> Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes:
> > Just answer the questions.  
> Well there seem to be a lot of them. And a lot of them don't seem to have
> default answers. Or in some cases any reasonable answer given my setup. 

Actually, they all have default answers.  A few have blank default
answers under most circumstances (like PCI bus ID and XKB variant),
which it is safe to leave blank.

> > It doesn't insist on "managing" your XF86Config-4 file now, it just insists
> > on asking you questions because I need to (greatly) improve the
> > PRIORITY_CEILING logic which I failed to implement correctly.
> Ick. That's, uhm, really really annoying, but I guess you know that.

Yes; it's on the TODO for 4.2.1-13.

> > Please see <URL: http://people.debian.org/~branden/xsf/FAQ > (near the
> > end) if you'd like to know what's going on.
> I did check there. But it seemed to say there were a million reasons why it
> shouldn't be asking me all these questions and the only advice it gave was how
> to convince it to take control back if it stopped. I assumed if it wasn't
> managing my config file it wouldn't ask me the questions.

I think it's important to have those questions answered anyway, in the
event the user changes his mind about the manual configuration gig.
(Unlikely, you say?  I wrote the latest FAQ entry about putting the
files back under automatic management because I was frequently asked.
:) )

Remember that configuration questions get asked in the config maintainer
script, which runs even prior to the preinst script in some cases.  I
can't make many assumptions about the filesystem.  The thought of having
a debconf template that is never shown to the user but just stores a
boolean for a configuration file's management state has occurred to me,
but I haven't thought through it yet.  Before I implement such a thing,
I need to think through all the possible scenarios.

When I fix the priority ceiling business, you'll only get asked a few of
the highest-priority questions (if any at all, depending on your
configured question priority threshold).  The intended effect of the
priority ceiling is to treat the existence of XF86Config-4 as "a
reasonable default answer exists for this question", meaning the value
in the configuration file.  Per debconf-devel(7), this means the
question priority would be capped at medium.  And that's exactly what I
tried to do, except my brain busted and I cannot achieve what I want
with simple parameter substitution tricks in Bourne shell.

In the meantime, I suggest just hitting enter until the questions go
away (if you're using the dialog frontend -- if not, do the equivalent
for your frontend).

G. Branden Robinson                |
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    Yeah, that's what Jesus would do.
branden@debian.org                 |    Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: