Re: Should debian policy require to use debconf for postinst scripts?
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 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
>...
That's not an answery. Let me formulate my questionas follows:
"Why do we _force_ our volunteer maintainers to do the FHS transition?"
"And why shouldn't we force our volunteer maintainers to use debconf?"
> Cheers,
> aj
cu
Adrian
--
Get my GPG key: finger bunk@debian.org | gpg --import
Fingerprint: B29C E71E FE19 6755 5C8A 84D4 99FC EA98 4F12 B400
Reply to: