On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 11:28:16AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 01:03:45AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote: > > So, the autoconfig in X.Org is, uhm, interesting. The best results I've > > seen from any system have been from my meticulously hand-tweaked Debconf > > scripts, based from xserver-xfree86's Debconf stuff. The major > > difference with mine, apart from using xresprobe and the like, is that a > > lot of the md5sum insanity has gone. > > Yeah, I've kept your re-worked scripts in the X.org packaging so far. I'll > probably start messing with them more as time goes on and bug reports come > in, but it's a relatively low priority for me. I need to take a closer look > at how you re-worked the md5sum stuff, but from what I saw it looks like a > good balance. New users are really confused when the md5sum thing gets in > the way. I may want to provide a debconf question saying "Your file has > been modified by hand. Are you *sure* you want to edit it?" If they answer > yes, I would back up the hand modified file so as not to lose it and allow > the packaging stuff to re-do the config. From the way users behave in > #debian, this seems to be what they want and expect. Sure. Currently, if you run sudo dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg, the assumption is that doing anything else than rewriting the config file -- doubly so if it doesn't actually say anything -- is utterly bizzare and should be avoided at all costs. So it backs it up and tells you where. But a Debconf question would also be nice. > > Long-term, it absolutely needs to go. Short-term, it should not be a > > priority over, say, actually getting xorg into the archive this > > century. > > Agreed. Priority number one is getting sarge out the door, followed by > getting X.org in to unstable, but not before etch is in the works and we > can start to gleefully break stuff :-) experimental! experimental!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature