maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (20/07/2006): > tags 377618 -patch > tags 377618 wontfix > severity 377618 wishlist > stop and no thanks > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 01:13:45PM +0200, Thomas Huriaux wrote: > <snipp> > > No, the argument of the priority is not valid. The lowest the priority > > is, the more experienced the user is expected to be. An experienced user > > usually knows where to find the relevant doc, and expects to find it at > > the right place. > > Moreover, as I said in my previous mail, you should use debconf to > > _configure_ the package, not to tell the user he/she can configure it. > > I therefore attach a patch to configure with debconf the two related > > items. Please check it carefully as I made it quickly. > > big NACK, > this is a real policy violation, > one is not allowed to change configfiles with debconf. > you would need to put it into /etc/defaults/logcheck.
I don't see any policy violation. I just copy/pasted and adapted the example in debconf-devel(7). If I missed something, please consider fixing it and not just marking the bug as wontfix. What you are saying about /etc/default/ is for init scripts, as far as I understand the policy. > and as you currently failed to convince me politely, > downgrading this "bug". I fail to find where I haven't been polite. I have used a direct and not-flourished style, that's all. If I've said something inappropriate, believe me, I'm sorry about it. > > See also policy 3.9.1: > > > > Packages should try to minimize the amount of prompting they need to do > > > > You seem to use debconf only because it is "more effective" > > please notice the subtle _should_ Sure, but my bug was not "serious", it was only "minor". -- Thomas Huriaux
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
