John Hasler wrote: > Thomas Viehmann writes: > >>If you absolutely want to go with preseeded debconf values, maybe you >>could ask Joey to allocate a priority "invisible" (or whatever you want >>to call it) that is exclusively used to do CDD configuration where, as in >>the case of NTP, prompting *a user* is completely unneccessary. > That would also require that debconf be made compulsory. No, there always have been wish-list bugs to support debconf. (And debconf for prompting is now recommended by policy. [0]) Other efforts (such as l10n) seem to be highly successful using wishlist bugs to achieve great things. Personally, I'm all for supporting CDDs. The thing I'm objecting to is doing it at the expense of users of stock Debian. Having something like a debconf priority only for CDDs does two things: - It doesn't affect users of stock Debian, - it documents that a debconf query is made to cater for CDDs. Which would seem to make both parties happy and avoid having conflicts between CDDs and policy. One of the failures of CDD protagonists seems to be to take influence on the documentation. If they had added a description of their debconf use to appropriate documents every deveoper consults (or ought to), they would have avoided this altogether. (E.g. someone could add something about debconf being used for CDDs to the Developer's Reference and maintain a list of which debconf values are used for cutomization.) Kind regards Thomas 0. No, this is not precise. -- Thomas Viehmann, <http://beamnet.de/tv/>
Attachment:
pgpM0kLXqkhGV.pgp
Description: PGP signature