On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 04:35:17PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > If debconf isn't good enough that everyone's not using it voluntarily
> > (lilo has been converted *from* debconf), then the obvious thing to do
> > is to improve debconf, not try to force everyone to make their packages
> > worse.
> Which of these cases is true?
> 1. debconf misses functionality needed
> 2. bugs in debconf
Consider, eg, #90676.
> It's some work for a maintainer to convert a package that simply uses
> things like "cat <<EOM" for interaction with the user to debconf - and if
> the maintainer is for any reason not willing to convert his package (he
> might even refuse a patch) the only way to force him to make this change
> is when policy says he has to do it.
That is *completely* the wrong attitude. We're all volunteers; we're not
here to be forced to do anything.
Cheers,
aj, wondering if he's going to have to do the "must" rant yet again
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
"Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it.
C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who
can't deal with deconstructionist humor. Code Blue."
-- Mike Hoye,
see http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt
Attachment:
pgpwaDwqmJXrz.pgp
Description: PGP signature