On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 02:28:26PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > AFAICT debconf is intended and presently advocated as a way to prompt > for defaults if they are absolutely needed. Specifically, it is not > intended as a way to store stuff. It is not intended to be the authoritative source of configuration information for the system. It most definitely *is* intended as a way to store stuff: it must be, in order for the config and postinst scripts to reliably communicate with one another. > How does your request correspond with the "debconf is not a registry" > mantra? Basically you seem to be advocating what many people have called > debconf abuse. You seem to misunderstand rather badly. No one here is saying that bugs that cause modified configs to be overwritten should not be corrected, only that the right way to address these bugs is by fixing the debconf support -- not by removing it. > One of the obvious things that got asked multiple but that none of the > 'keep debconf promt'ers answered is: Why is it critical for you to have > these defaults done with debconf as opposed to customizing config files? Because there is no other general-purpose, policy-compliant way to customize config files belonging to packages. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature