On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 07:25:03PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Hello everyone,
> The background for this question is Lintian Bug#492626. > There are several packages in the archive that use private debconf > templates where the only interface to them is preseeding. Examples > include the readahead package (where the preseed was added for Debian Edu) > and cpufrequtils (which documents the preseed in README.Debian). > Currently, Debian flags these packages as not using po-debconf. That's > probably the wrong tag regardless, but I'm trying to figure out which way > to fix it. One approach is to consider this a reasonable use of debconf > and fix Lintian to not tag it at all. Another would be to tag packages > that have only private debconf questions as a situation that doesn't make > a lot of sense. > My initial reaction was that anything that's worth making available for > configuration via preseeding is worth a low-priority debconf prompt, and > that having preseeding be the only interface is a weird way to use > debconf. But I'm starting to reconsider, particularly given Policy > 3.9.1's dictate to minimize prompting. > What do people think about this? I don't think the 3.9.1 dictate on minimizing prompting is inconsistent with making the prompts available at low debconf priority. If this were the meaning of "minimize", surely all low-priority debconf questions should be stricken for the same reason? I would certainly prefer that packages give users the opportunity to control functionality such as this using dpkg-reconfigure -plow, instead of exclusively by way of hidden tricks. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
