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

Re: Private-only debconf templates for preseeding

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 07:25:03PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Hello everyone,

> The background for this question is Lintian Bug#492626.

> There are several packages in the archive that use private debconf
> templates where the only interface to them is preseeding.  Examples
> include the readahead package (where the preseed was added for Debian Edu)
> and cpufrequtils (which documents the preseed in README.Debian).

> Currently, Debian flags these packages as not using po-debconf.  That's
> probably the wrong tag regardless, but I'm trying to figure out which way
> to fix it.  One approach is to consider this a reasonable use of debconf
> and fix Lintian to not tag it at all.  Another would be to tag packages
> that have only private debconf questions as a situation that doesn't make
> a lot of sense.

> My initial reaction was that anything that's worth making available for
> configuration via preseeding is worth a low-priority debconf prompt, and
> that having preseeding be the only interface is a weird way to use
> debconf.  But I'm starting to reconsider, particularly given Policy
> 3.9.1's dictate to minimize prompting.

> What do people think about this?

I don't think the 3.9.1 dictate on minimizing prompting is inconsistent with
making the prompts available at low debconf priority.  If this were the
meaning of "minimize", surely all low-priority debconf questions should be
stricken for the same reason?

I would certainly prefer that packages give users the opportunity to control
functionality such as this using dpkg-reconfigure -plow, instead of
exclusively by way of hidden tricks.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Reply to: