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

Re: camsource-0.7.0-0.balu.2 - ready for sponsoring?

On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 11:01:29AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Please undo that, either generate the devices[1] or don't but don't add
> another debconf question just because you can.
> Rule of the thumb: *Only* ask if there is no sane default.

The problem is that there is no sane default IMHO... :)

As I've stated in the debconf-question you can but don't have to use the
video devices as input to camsource. 

So my thinking is: Should I create devices even if users
doesn't want/need them? And: Are most users going to choose "yes" as
they need the package or is the number of "no"-choosers high enough to
justify the debconf-question?

I'd also have to depend on makedev then, which adds an unneeded
dependancy in case the user doesn't want to use v4l and extends the
users opinion to "This tool not only installs unnecessary devices but
also needs additional software to do so. Why doesn't the maintainer ask
me first?". :)

It only asks if no devfs is used and no video devices are there. 
Then you have two qestions:
If no makedev is there - display the info that you might need the devices
and have to install makedev to be able to create them. 
If makedev is installed - ask wether to install the devices or not.

What about lowering the priority of the questions? Most people would not
see them then, but use the default. Which then again would need a 
dependancy on makedev.

It's not that I just added the debconf to create a 1337 package with
yet another debconf-question, but thought about what users wanted me to
do :)


Reply to: