On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 03:54:03PM +0100, Roland Mas wrote: > Adrian Bunk (2003-01-13 12:00:31 +0100) : > > > I'm therefore suggesting that you change your policy to something like: > > > > <-- snip --> > > > > ... > > 2.3.9.1. Prompting in maintainer scripts > > ---------------------------------------- > > > > Package maintainer scripts may prompt the user if necessary. > > Prompting must be done through programs like `debconf' that > > conform to the Debian Configuration management specification, > > version 2 or higher. > > ... > > > > <-- snip --> > > I agree with the spirit of the proposal, but I won't second it as is. > Going directly from a "may" to a "must" is too quick in my opinion. > Please make that a "should" first. It'll still allow you to file bugs > (although not serious ones), and it'll have a better chance of being > accepted. I'll second it, for a start :-)
The problem is: debconf isn't new. Many packages already use it and the number of packages that don't use it and don't have an open wishlist bug is zero or at least not much bigger than zero. The problem is that within the rules of your policy every single of your over thousand maintainers can decide how he wants to maintain his packages. Currently a maintainer can simply refuse to use debconf and _noone_ can force him to use debconf. There are bugs with patches like e.g. #127961 that are already ignored for a year or longer. For purposes like automatic installation or upgrading of packages it is required that _not a single_ of your over ten thousand packages prompts the user without using debconf. Otherwise you always have to start to special case every single package. Debian already has a damned good infrastructure for automated tasks, it's a shame that it's not really usable due to few packages not using debconf. > Roland. cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed