Re: configure a program -- debconf abuse?
On 7/9/05, Hamish Moffatt <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 10:00:16AM +0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> > Em Ter, 2005-07-05 às 21:32 +1000, Hamish Moffatt escreveu:
> > > > Keeping the question priority at 'low' make sure most users will not
> > > > see the question, and that only reconfigure will present it. I hope
> > > > you are not setting the debconf priority limit to low. :)
> > >
> > > If we recommend against setting the priority to low, why bother with it?
> > Enabling debconf pre-seeding for customized installs is a good enough
> > justification IMO.
> That sounds like a good use for hidden questions. But I think we ask way
> too many questions on the whole.
> In the last two days I helped a friend with a sarge install who is new
> to linux. We installed the base system with the desktop task.
> Does the new Debian user really care if their fonts are managed with
> defoma, a technology they have never heard of? (And when did defomized
> become a verb?) There should be a sensible default. Why shouldn't fonts
> always be managed with defoma?
> Is it important at system install time to ask whether cdrecord should be
> installed SUID or not? There should be a sensible default there too.
> The post-reboot (debootstrap) stage asks way too many questions.
> This is a pity because the pre-reboot (d-i) stage is excellent.
I've been wondering the same about questions on updates. Why are
(many) questions being asked on updates (first update after system
install)? Sounds like a weird time to me.