Quoting Jamie Strandboge (ja...@ubuntu.com): > Also, while this is indeed a boolean, due to limitations in the gtk > debconf backend, it was deemed that the original wording worked best > with the gtk checkbox. See http://launchpad.net/bugs/344971 for details. > If you feel that the Description here is better considering all > contexts, I am fine with making the change, but I wanted to point our > the gtk debconf deficiency.
This has been discussed a while ago (indeed during Debian Installer early development which is the first time some style uniformity ideas were discuseed for debconf templates). It is correct that the GTK interface checkboxes for boolean templates slightly better fit a non interrogative form. However, this non interrogative form is completely unsuitable for *other* debconf interfaces, and particularly the dialog one where the synopsis is showed just before "Yes" and "No" buttons. So, the interrogative form recommendation is a compromise between all these needs: it is OK with checkboxes (though not perfect) *and* Yes/No buttons. A good fix would probably be turning the checkboxes in Yes/No dialog boxes in the GTK interface for debconf so that we can achieve better consistency.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
