Bug#269732: tetex-bin: Debconf-note confusing and does not work on install (but on dpkg-reconfigure)

[Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>]

severity 269732 minor
stop

Helge Kreutzmann <kreutzm@itp.uni-hannover.de> schrieb:

>
>> > I chose "yes" because I wanted to be asked, but I did not get asked.
>> 
[...]
>> So which versions are correct, then? If it is in fact version 2.0.2-20,
>> then the fact that you didn't see the language choices until
>> dpkg-reconfigure is not surprising.
>
> libkpathsea3: 2.0.2-20
> tetex-base:   2.0.2b-3
>
> Ok, I assumed that given the choice of manual or auto (as I
> interpreted the debconf-question) was meant to give me a selection if
> I chose manual.

Yes, in principle it should. If I am right, however (debconf-show could
have/will show that), then it is as follows:

- You have yet answered both questions previously ("Manage language.dat
  with debconf", "select patterns"). 

- Previously, it was the default to manage language.dat with debconf,
  because otherwise only a minimal set of patterns would be
  available. In 2.0.2-17 (which was never in testing, therefore
  effectively in -20) we changed that - the default is now "no", and the
  installed language.dat enables nearly all patterns.

- It turned out that this is not just a matter of taste, but that some
  programs (especially on the buildd's) rely (or rather will rely) on
  language.dat with many patterns enabled, and thus on a "no" answer to
  the question. Those systems usually are updated with the debconf
  priority set to critical, or even the noninteractive frontend.

  In order to change the settings on those machines, we had to set the
  question to unseen. This results in the new default, the "no" answer,
  being taken. For people that do an interactive install and see the
  question, and have previously chosen to manage language.dat with
  debconf, the question is shown again (with a new wording, hopefully
  clear in 2.0.2-21). Chosing "no" will not change anything at once, but
  I hope people will also look into NEWS.Debian then and read what they
  should do.

> Guess you can close this bug as the wording as been cleared, the
> missing selection is intended (though IMHO still confusing)

I hope it will be less confusing with the new wording. And I didn't want
to add a paragraph only for upgraders-from-unstable/testing, which would
again only confuse upgraders from woody, or people installing from
scratch. As for closing, I'll wait for your debconf-show output.

Regards, 
-- 
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie