> Certainly. I have a local upload waiting a fix for the custom build > target. make has broken/changed since atlas3 was put together, and > now the ordering of the rules is out of control. My intention was to > upload a fix for everything at once since it takes so long to get > atlas through the build system. This is the most important bug > outstanding, IMHO.
What I can propose you is sending you what I currently have for *.config, *.templates, README.Debian and po/* See attached tarball. They represent my understanding of what should be kept in templates and what should be put in templates.....indeed all no_* templates and them only. > OK, looking over this again, how about this: > > README.Debian: > > atlas3/ldlp > atlas3/nfs > > Low priority notes and README.Debian: > > atlas3/blas_lapack > atlas3-foo/foo_extensions Well, as low priority notes, they will be unused...and a big burden to translators. > > Medium(or high ?) priority notes: > > atlas3-foo/no_foo high, definitely. And, indeed, turned into "error" templates.... > The idea is that the user should be made aware in some fashion at > runtime that certain libraries previously installed have been > transparently overriden. The mechanism is akin to a diversion, which, > if memory serves, does appear on the installation screen somewhere. > The user should be made especially aware that certain performance they > think they should be getting is not available, and in effect the > package is 'dead code'. If the user *must* be aware, then the templates should be high priority.... Otherwise, I still think they should see README.Debian. > > But, moreover, as they use low priority, they are indeed NOT seen by > > probably 90 or 95% of your users. So, as such, they *are* useless. I > > suggest that you go through the details of the rationale given in the > > recent bug reports I sent: I couldn't develop better. > > > > If all low priority notes are useless, then why does this priority > exist? Should they be medium, then? What is actually very actively discouraged is the note+low (and at some extent note+medium) combination. other type of templates such as "select" still make good use of low priority. Again, given that probably 80 to 90% of users will use the default setting of debconf (high priority) they will never see low and medium priority notes. That's all the point of these bug reports. > > Please taken into account that the current maintainer of debconf (Joey > > Hess) himself thinks that low and medium priority notes fall under a > > contradiction and considers completely removing the support for notes. > > > > I don't get this at all. Perhaps there should be but one priority > setting, but how else should a package be sure that the user sees > something? Can you imagine the spurious bug reports that should be > eliminated by well placed notes in a case like this? Unfortunately notes have been abused way too much. The datatype was originally meant for very cautious use and has been diverted as a derivative of package documentation....that's the main point of very extreme reaction suggesting the complete removal of notes. > > These "no_*" notes become *error* templates type which is perfectly > > acceptable. > > > > OK, an error template is likely better -- is this new? How does it > differ from a high priority note? It will be shown in *any* case to users.
atlas3.patch.tar.gz
Description: Binary data
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
