Re: Another job for the QA team
Quoting Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.north.de>:
> Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > > One more reason not to have press-enter-to-continue's in maintainer
> > > scripts, even if the information or question presented seems important
> > > (some "crucial" change to a conffile or something like that): if you
> > > have something to say, don't put press-enter after displaying the
> > > information, but send the info to our FAQ maintainer for inclusion in
> > > Debian FAQ.
> >
> > In my new version of the fvwm package (2.2-x), there have been radical
> > changes. The postinst will do its best not to irrevocably retrieve
> > the information it expects to currently be present, but it warns the
> > installer that certain information may be lost, thus giving them a
> > chance to rescue it first. I do not think that this is an
> > unreasonable query, but better ways of handling it are always welcome.
>
> Please ensure that the user is not bothered if he makes a new installation
> such as a fresh slink/potato installation but only sees this message
> when upgrading from a proper older version to the current one.
>
> > A more questionable example: "Should I make this the default window
> > manager?" We could always do so be default, but since the sysadmin
> > may have already chosed the default window manager, they may not like
> > this behaviour.
>
> Something has to be done here. I'm not sure what. But being asked
> everytime I install any wm, that sucks.
What about install-window-manager be change for sleeping in background
until all packages are installed (it's mean until dpkg stop) then show
a nice tty menu allowing you to choices your default WM? With a little
work, it can also let you comment or moves entries around (for used in
Xsession).
>
> > And of course, dpkg asks questions when trying to upgrade modified
> > conffiles.
>
> Yes, but only if the local one has been modified but the former one
> was the conffile from the package, so these questions are reasonable
> unless dpkg gets a flag like '--force-overwrite-conffiles' or similar.
I would prefer a --force-keep-conffiles for this matter. This is the
default from dpkg and I think is a good one and dpkg always keep the
new conffiles around, so we can manually update them. Usually, packages
who new conffiles broked the old one have script to convert them so it's
not a matter.
Take note also that the -y option of apt-get make dpkg overwrite the file.
I think the bug should be fill against dpkg. Having a default set to 'No'
when it can clearly be rephrased to be 'Yes' is a bad thing (Eh! People
are used to say yes to everything, aren't?). However, I understand this
change should be make only with alot of warnings because people not always
read the questions they answer ;).
>
> Regards,
>
> Joey
>
Just my 2 pennies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabien Ninoles Chevalier servant de la Dame Catherine des Rosiers
aka Corbeau aka le Veneur Debian GNU/Linux maintainer
E-mail: fab@tzone.org
WebPage: http://www.tzone.org/~fabien
RSA PGP KEY [E3723845]: 1C C1 4F A6 EE E5 4D 99 4F 80 2D 2D 1F 85 C1 70
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: