>>>>> "RB" == Rob Browning. RB> "Davide G. M. Salvetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> BTW, I don't remember if we have ever discussed about it, but I also >> think add-on packages should byte-compile in background [1], since it >> could be a quiet long job. They should also provide a log. >> >> [1]: It would be nice if the user could choose whether to have >> background or foreground byte-compilation, but this may be a bit unfair >> with respect to unattended installation (the less you ask the user, the >> better, especially on new (not upgrade one) installation).
RB> While I agree with this in principle, I'm not ready to make policy RB> about it. For now, it'll just be up to the maintainers to decide. RB> After we get things rolling (and the users start complaining :>), then RB> we can deal with this on a case by case basis. Just asking, wouldn't be better to provide a unified interface, where your scripts decide if install/add-on-package should be called in foreground or background (or, maybe, pass an argument to install/add-on-package suggesting what to do)? Maybe it's not a good idea (in fact I don't like it very much), but I think we should consider this possibility, even if we choose not to implement it. Thanks.
Davide G. M. Salvetti - IW5DZC [JN53fr] Take a look at Debian GNU/Linux: <http://www.debian.org/>. Debian is the free operating system with open development model.
