Re: Should debian policy require to use debconf for postinst scripts?
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 09:56:51AM -0800, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> aj> You don't need an excuse to not mandate something, you need a damn
> aj> good reason to mandate, and a huge amount of current practice to
> aj> support it.
> Is the reason given by OP not damn good enough?
No, not really. When we can actually support non-interactive installs
and the like, then it'll be a good reason to make it a RC bug not so new
packages don't break that feature; but until we can and do support it,
it definitely should not be a RC bug not to.
> And is the overwhelming majority of interactive scripts that _do_ use
> debconf already not a huge enough amount?
No, it's not "current practice" to use debconf when a bunch of important
packages specifically don't use it.
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: