Previously Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > I strongly suspect that if we take a carefull look at what the > > configuration scripts are asking we will find this is not a major hurdle > > for MOST things - and a such should not be the central focus of any > > proposal.
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The term "not MOST things" has a tendency to bite you afterwards. Hrm.. I just made a comment on debian-devel which was made without noticing all this stuff on debian-policy about putting code into the configuration language. [I read debian-policy only a couple times a week, so I can get a better feel for how things relate to each other]. So maybe I'm a little biased here. But... There's more than one way to achieve "conditionally available responses". For example, there's the way that they're generally handled on paper "If yes, ....". A variation on this would be to let the administrator decide how things should be handled. If the administrator is putting together several hundred systems then any conditional stuff will probably need to be answered both ways (assuming the local machine can have some override configuration. Or, for a one-off machine configuation, just focus on what's needed. Maybe even let the prompting be instrumented from the postinst scripts (or wherever) so that the configuration choices which can be distinguished by examining the machine (what is the device driver for your mouse?) can be used to supply defaults (or hints, because "defaults" implies a conflict with pre-supplied defaults). -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
