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

Re: ntp 4.2.0 in experimental

On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 12:25:09PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 05:17:35PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

> > The first question is often asked in order to allow users who don't want
> > to use the Debconf configuration to avoid having to sit through reams of
> > configuration which will only be ignored anyway.  That strikes me as
> > being useful.

> If there are configuration settings that warrant a high-priority debconf
> question (meaning there is no reasonable default value), why would you
> want to skip it when configuring the package?

If, for example, the next thing that happens after the package is
installed is that the configuration gets blown away with one that was
prepared earlier.

> The real reason for this question appearing in most packages where it
> does is that it paints over a real bug in the package's re-parsing of
> the config, resulting in a loss of local config changes (the "debconf is
> not a registry" bug), which is not acceptable; and without this
> underlying bug, the added question is not useful.

This really does depend on the package - there are (or at least have
been) packages that do a bit more than the bare minimum configuration
via Debconf.  It is these packages that can benefit from an 'are you
interested?' question.

"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."

Reply to: