Branden Robinson wrote:
> Hmm. I thought I did this.
>
> Actually, I do. Except I'm asking at medium, not high. It's a "normal
> item that has a reasonable default" (see debconf-devel(7)). A correct
> answer is important for the user to have a good computing experience, so
> it cannot be low priority ("Very trivial items that have defaults that
> will work in the vast majority of cases; only control freaks see
> these.").
>
> Perhaps you can help me find the bug in the following:
I'm not going to try to comprehend this code, but I can tell you that I
reconfigured the package with debconf developer debugging on, and it had
decided to ask the question at high priority. Medium priority would be
fine.
> See my reply to another recent bug of yours regarding autoconfiguration
> vs. template defaults. I had a bitch of a time getting that right[1].
> I think it had to do with the fact that I can't program a default
> dynamically, and pre-*answering* the question (which changes the
> default) is not the right thing to do.
I don't see what's wrong with changing the value of the question's
answer before asking it if mdetect found a mouse on /dev/psaux.
--
see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature