[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 12:18:30PM +0200, Thomas -Balu- Walter wrote:
> 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 think you are being too cautious. A couple of device-nodes is no big
deal, we aren't talking about tens of kilobytes of wasted diskspace or
big fat dependencies. 

> 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?". :)

You'll need to depend on makedev even if you generate the devices only
conditionally, ... unless you jump through hoops like this one:

> 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.

That is just too complicated to sidestep a dependency on a
microscopic package that you'll find on practically all Debian
installations anyway because it has huge reverse-depends.
         cu andreas

Reply to: