Marc Haber wrote: > - dpkg still uses normal console prompting for dpkg-conffile > handling, while debconf has been mandatory for regular packages for > years now. Dpkg has more active development now than it has for much of the past fifteen years. And they've even talked some about implementing debconf conffile prompting and fixing other much worse dpkg/debconf integration points. That's fairly minor compared to developing saner source package formats, really. One could complain that debconf itself is not being as well maintained as it might be. One of its two maintainers avoided having anything to do with Debian for a full year recently. Especially the transition to using cdebconf has been stalled far too long, on some bugs that are documented and should be a straightforward matter of coding to fix. > - The concept of "all services are immediately started after > configuration" and "deleting all stop/start links will cause the > package's defaults to be re-established on the next package update" > is meeting a lot of resistance in the user base lately. Many people > use this as explanation why Debian is totally out of the question in > a professional environment for them. Is there some reason that these professional environments cannot deploy a 2 line policy-rc.d? Perhaps someone should make a no-auto-start-daemon package that contains it? I have seen a lot of users run into the update-rc.d link issue, but never seen any perceive it as anything more than a minor gotcha that you learn the workaround for. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature