On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 05:41:40PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > > i think the issue was more of annoyance than impact... if a local > > admin removes said dirs, he/she'd probably like them to stay gone. > > How can he have removed them if he's upgrading from woody? The postinst > script could easily check the version from which it is upgraded. i addressed that in my next paragraph: > > would be good for? that is, in the maintainer scripts, if the version > > change is from pre-fhs to post-fhs, ask the user "upgrade to latest > > fhs spec?" this way, i think everybody would get what they wanted. > Yes, and everybody would have to read the latest fhs document before > deciding. Or you explain in long detail why it might be clever to create > those dirs, and under which circumstances it might be disadvantageous > (are there any?). > > This is debconf abuse, I'd say - there's a safe default for everybody. i'd argue that this is exactly the kind of question you'd want to have asked in debconf. the fact that there's a safe/reasonable default just means that there's no reason to set it at a priority of mid (or better low) the people who are annoyed by too many debconf questions already have their minimum priority in debconf above this, people who want to have a better idea of what their packages are doing or have more control get the question, the question is only asked once, and you don't even have to rely on the whole debconf/registry dilemma since this situation would only arise between certain versions or a fresh install. who loses in a situation like that? sean
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature