[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#224509: is it the future yet? (was: Correct spurious promise regarding TTY availability)

It has been over three years since this proposal was submitted 
originally, and two over two years since the discussion appears to have 

Our users perceive this part of policy as de facto bugs and experience 
problems that might otherwise be avoided; see
#282147 and #298425 for example.

Time changes things that were good decisions in the past.  Is it time 
for policy to start catching up with DEBIAN_FRONTEND=noninteractive?  
Isn't debconf the future?  It just seems silly to force users to write 
expect scripts or other silly hacks to work around bugs that could be 
avoided by fixing this policy wart.

Can this proposal be reconsidered, with s/should/recommends/ ?  i.e.

+        <p>
+         Availability of a controlling terminal is not guaranteed,
+         so before making use of it it is recommended to check for
+         its availability.  If it is unavailable, it is recommended 
+         that this is handled gracefully by assuming noninteractive
+         behaviour.  Determining the availability of a controlling
+         terminal can for example be done by inspecting the return
+         code of the command <prgn>tty</prgn>.
+        </p>


Reply to: