Re: Should debian policy require to use debconf for postinst scripts?
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 12:16:15PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> - a package has it's documentation in /usr/doc
> - the maintainer gets a patch how to change it
> - the maintainer refuses the patch "I want to have the documentation in
> /usr/doc."
>
> - a package doesn't use debconf for interaction with the user while
> asking the user questions at installation time
> - the maintainer gets a patch how to change it
> - the maintainer refuses the patch "I don't want to use debconf."
>
> I don't get the point why it's all right to send a RC bug report in the
> first case but not in the second case.
The point is people shouldn't be saying "Oh, I don't want to do that"
for no reason whatsoever. And, indeed, they don't; they'll generally
have a *reason* for doing so.
The reason for the former being RC is that FHS compliance is RC
and there's no technical reason for them to prefer /usr/doc over
/usr/share/doc.
And thanks to this stupid MUST thing in policy everyone's wasting their
time trying to figure out how to force people to do things, instead of
making sure that there's absolutely no reason why they wouldn't want to.
Cheers,
aj
--
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
Reply to: