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

Re: apt-listchanges (Re: Advice on how best to handle non-backwards compatibility)

On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:23:06AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 04:53:26PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 03:58:18PM +0100, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal'
> > von Bidder wrote:
> > > I hate debconf notices, personally. I feel this is exactly a case
> > > for NEWS.Debian (yes, I'm a happy apt-listchanges user... - IMHO
> > > that tool belongs installed by default).
> > 
> > While I think NEWS.Debian is the right approach, the fact that
> > apt-listchanges isn't installed by default is deterring me from
> > relying on it. I'd like this not to be the case in the long term.
> > 
> > Is apt-listchanges still not installed by default in sarge? If not,
> > why not?
> For the same reason that other packages that sometimes seem like a
> good idea by default are not.  That is, they don't meet the definition
> for Priority: standard.

In that case I find it difficult to use NEWS.Debian in good conscience
to communicate information about changes that I think users need to see.
While debconf notes are grotty, at least they have good eyeball
coverage, and it seems to me that they'll result in less confusion and
fewer user error bugs than yet another file that people won't read.

I'm sure I remember the DebConf 2 talk at which the NEWS.Debian idea was
originally discussed including the proviso that the tool that displayed
them should be installed by default.


Colin Watson                                  [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]

Reply to: