Manoj Srivastava wrote: > I can understand that -- you have written debconf, and it > probably perfectly satisfies your needs, and behaves in a fashion > that feels absolutely natural and logical to you. That has nothing to do with my reasons for feeling this is a bad idea. In fact I've done a fair bit of work on transitioning us to cdebconf (which I did not write) and expect to do more. Moreover, as with most software I write (or paintings I paint..), I can see problems in debconf that most people are not particularly aware of. My reasons have more to do with why we want to use a system like debconf in the first place, and how something like what you're describing could seriously undermine its advantages. Things like UI consitency, user control, a simple frontend-agnostic protocol, etc. As I said I'd prefer to not go into my reasons in depth here, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't attribute incorrect reasons to me. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature