On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 08:37:30AM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> IMHO it would be better to simply have the current behaviour on priority
> medium and your new "full control" behaviour on priority low. I don't
> see the point of choosing the mode in priority low because if the user
> chooses to run at this priority he already has told d-i that he wants
> full control.
I thought about this, but changing the question depending on the debconf
priority (which is supposed to control which questions are shown,
nothing more) seemed to be a dirty hack.
Here are the big problems to be solved with this piece of code :
- The user must be warned (even at priority=low, IMHO) that he risks
to break things if he deselects things, but only if he's offered
the opportunity to do so.
- It's quite hard to write a long description for
anna/choose-modules which works in both cases.
- We shouldn't break automatic installs, when the debconf DB already
has values.
Using an additional template, its answer is stored in the DB, so if you
need to deselect modules in an automatic install, you can do so with
preloaded values even at priority=critical.
I'm just thinking of another way :
- Use two alternative anna/choose_modules, one for limited control,
one for full control. (fixes the description problem and the warn
problem)
- Use yet another question, _not to be shown_, for which one to
choose. If not yet seen when we need its value, set its value
depending on the debconf priority. (fix the automatic install
problem, since the question to ask will be recorded in debconf's
database).
Do I just code it ? Ideas, anyone ?
BTW: can I use a substitution for the Default: field, rather than
setting the value before the qustion is shown ?
--
Jeremie Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
