Re: Should debian policy require to use debconf for postinst scripts?
>
> 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
Yes, but we should try to make something that doen't suck too much.
The lack of automatic installation is the reason why I don't install
Debian any more for my customers.
I wrote an automatic installer (which worked) for slink, but I had to
spend weeks to adapt the postinst scripts of debian packages to it,
and I didn't want to repeat all the work for potato and woody.
In my opinion now that we have debconf we should mandate its use by
policy.
It is true that we are volunteers but we all agree to follow a policy
and if the policy says that we must use debconf we'll use it.
--
Massimo Dal Zotto
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Massimo Dal Zotto email: massimo.dalzotto@libero.it |
| Via Marconi, 141 phone: ++39-461534251 |
| 38057 Pergine Valsugana (TN) www: http://www.cs.unitn.it/~dz/ |
| Italy http://www.debian.org/~dz/ |
| gpg: 2DB65596 3CED BDC6 4F23 BEDA F489 2445 147F 1AEA 2DB6 5596 |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Reply to: