Re: less hard coded config files
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 21-06-2005 23:17, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> the way you worded it, it basically sounds like any use of debconf
> pre-seeding a policy violation... but i don't think that is true.
Thanks for clarifying. We seem to disagree.
(not that I see *any* use of debconf preseeding as policy violating, but
when done by maintainer scripts of other packages, yes).
>>>you seem to be saying "this is broken, we need it fixed."
>>>
>>>and others seem to say "yes, we know, but we have other priorities right
>>>now."
>>
>>Maybe I'm just blind, but I never realized the "yes, we know, but" part.
>
>
> here's one:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-edu/2005/05/msg00304.html
That one says "yes, we know this can be better - but it isn't broken".
What I can't find is "yes, we know this is broken".
>>>without *providing* and alternative, re-stating the issue will not solve
>>>it.
>
>
>
>>If we all agree to what is the problem, you are right: there is no need
>>to re-state it.
>
>
> simply restating a problem will not convince anyone, either.
I agree. And believe this discussion have not included statements simply
repeated.
> i don't know anyone involved in CDDs who doesn't wish we had better
> tools to deal with these situations...
Sure. But some of them place only things inside Debian that follows the
guidelines.
- Jonas
- --
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
- Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCuK52n7DbMsAkQLgRAtNtAJsHtqYJcn5r0iRVu1AjKzysQmwrnQCdG7aO
jMJKK3mxdxNeVDcYOjffsso=
=OBRf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: