Bug#206684: debian-policy: Proposal for going ahead with mandatory debconf use for prompting
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 03:40:08PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
> > So yes, I don't see any way around this exception for glibc. postfix
> > would have no excuse, though.
> Okay. From a Policy perspective, I don't really want to single out libc6
> unless I have to.
Agreed.
> Would it make sense to have a blanket exception for all
> Essential packages, something like:
> As an exception, essential packages may fall back on non-debconf
> prompting if debconf is not available.
> Or do we want to go a step farther and say that they can unconditionally
> use non-debconf prompting?
Both of these seem fine to me. I suppose debconf availability should be
determined by whether /usr/share/debconf/confmodule can be sourced
successfully? Are the debconf maintainers ok with that particular check as
a guarantee?
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 03:58:28PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
> > Okay. From a Policy perspective, I don't really want to single out
> > libc6 unless I have to. Would it make sense to have a blanket exception
> > for all Essential packages, something like:
> > As an exception, essential packages may fall back on non-debconf
> > prompting if debconf is not available.
> Except, of course, libc6 isn't essential. Hm. Maybe just "essential
> packages or packages depended on by essential packages," only worded
> better.
As an exception, to avoid pre-dependency loops essential packages and their
pre-dependencies may fall back on non-debconf prompting if debconf is not
available.
?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Reply to: