On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 12:16:15PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > - a package has it's documentation in /usr/doc > > - the maintainer gets a patch how to change it > > - the maintainer refuses the patch "I want to have the documentation in > > /usr/doc." > > > > - a package doesn't use debconf for interaction with the user while > > asking the user questions at installation time > > - the maintainer gets a patch how to change it > > - the maintainer refuses the patch "I don't want to use debconf." > > > > I don't get the point why it's all right to send a RC bug report in the > > first case but not in the second case. > > The point is people shouldn't be saying "Oh, I don't want to do that" > for no reason whatsoever. And, indeed, they don't; they'll generally > have a *reason* for doing so. > > The reason for the former being RC is that FHS compliance is RC >...
That's not an answery. Let me formulate my questionas follows: "Why do we _force_ our volunteer maintainers to do the FHS transition?" "And why shouldn't we force our volunteer maintainers to use debconf?" > Cheers, > aj cu Adrian -- Get my GPG key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] | gpg --import Fingerprint: B29C E71E FE19 6755 5C8A 84D4 99FC EA98 4F12 B400
