tags 586759 moreinfo thanks Hi Holger,
On tiisdei 22 Juny 2010, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Dienstag, 22. Juni 2010, Julien Cristau wrote: > > Why? It's not configured, it won't work, why should it pretend the > > installation was successful? > > because you want the package in stable? > > having packages installable is a release goal, else packages are not > suited for a stable release. A fix has been committed for this bug but I'm not convinced that this is the right one. I don't think your reasoning quoted above is technically sound. We do not fix bugs 'because a release goal says so' but because we think the change is a technically better situation. In my opinion the current situation is: 1) Package needs SQL database to function; 2) Package asks for SQL info in configuration stage; 3) Reporter does not supply apt SQL info; 4) Package is unable to contact database and cannot complete setup; 5) Package fails installation. That seems correct to me, because the package is not useful without a configured database, and retrying configuring the package with correct database information would solve that problem. If we would instead just claim that installation is successful, where it in fact is not, we end up with a 'successfully' installed package that doesn't work. That doesn't seem like an improvement to me. Can you please clarify why you think we shouldn't abort installation when incorrect database info is provided? Cheers, Thijs
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
