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

Re: [custom] Custom Debian Distros need the help from debian developers

On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 06:12:14PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > ... your argument against the use of debconf is that questions at low
> > priority will sometimes be asked?  Um, anybody who runs debconf at low
> > priority gets exactly what they ask for.  Trying to create a separate
> > priority with the explicit intention that the questions will *never* be
> > asked would inappropriately overload debconf.

> My argument is that debconf priority low is defined to be used in user
> interaction. If, in the opinion of the maintainer, there is a resonable
> default, policy instructs him hat the interaction should be avoided.
> If CDDs want to use debconf in these cases, priority low is not appropriate.

There is no reason why users should not be *given the option* of
adjusting these settings through debconf interaction, if the code is
already there to use debconf.

Policy describes perfectly well the user's package configuration
experience when running debconf at high priority (assuming no
per-package bugs).  Everything that can be configured at medium or below
is icing anyway.

> (For your reference of the NTP howto: The howto & faq on ntp.org
> contains dead links in the server selection section. My guess that it
> was written before there was pool.ntp.org.)

Actually, this is fundamental to the NTP protocol; you get a more
accurate clock if you can cross-reference the timestamps between
multiple servers.  Pointing to pool.ntp.org may give you a consistently
accessible *single* server, but you don't get the assurance of having
multiple referents.  (You'll just have a single referent, which may be a
different server each time you poll it.)

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: