Re: Bug#562945: Bug#582755: Bug#562945: fails to install
Holger Levsen <email@example.com> writes:
> On Freitag, 18. Juni 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> I think policy is unclear here: this part of policy was added per
>>> #224509, while there is #506898 (which is unfortuantly merged with
>>> 224509, as I read it should conflict with #506898), which says that
>>> this part of policy contradicts with §3.9.1 intruduced via #206684,
>>> which makes use of debconf mandatory.
>> I don't see what's unclear or why you think these bugs should not be
>> merged. Could you add more explanation?
> #506898, which is merged with #224509, basically says that #224509
> should not be in policy, because it contradicts the change introduced by
> fixing #206684.
I'm still not seeing why you think that #506898 says that #224509 should
not be in Policy. Both of those bugs say the same thing: packages cannot
rely on a controlling terminal and Policy should not say that they do.
Maybe the missing piece is that the behavior of debconf changes based on
whether or not there is a controlling terminal, so packages still need to
care about whether or not there is a controlling terminal in some cases
even when they're using debconf? The wording of the report in #506898 is
misleading in that respect, but all the discussion happened on #224509 so
no one replied on that bug.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>