On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 13:40 -0700, Delirium wrote: > As a mere user I suppose I don't have much say, but I increasingly find > it pretty annoying to have to answer this stupidly condescending > question every time I install a new version of the package.
It is supposed to be skipped if the package matches the current upstream version, which is usually the case. This is checked using uscan, which requires the recommended packages devscripts and libwww-perl. Do you have those installed? > It's > *standard* that users should report bugs to Debian's BTS if the bug is > in a Debian version of a package, especially if it's a development > snapshot. Unfortunately significant numbers of users don't seem to know this. Not all upstream authors make such a big deal about it, though. > It feels condescending to have to acknowledge this each time > (esp. with the default at "no"!), and what's more it makes upgrading > annoying because it requires unnecessary user intervention in the middle > of what ought to be an automated process through. The default has to be "no" so that it's impossible to miss the notice even if you make debconf non-interactive. Yes, this sucks. > I see ion3's moved to > non-free due to the licensing issue I wasn't aware of previously... so I > guess I do use non-free despite my assumption that I didn't. Having to > answer this question each time is still annoying, but I guess nothing > can be done about it, unless you're willing to put the package back in > main under a name not containing "ion". I may yet do that. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
