On Mon, 2003-11-10 at 16:07, Jeremie Koenig wrote: > 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. It does not seem so to me. From a usability point of view it's the best solution IMHO. Having more choices in a select list at lower priority seems like a natural extension of the debconf priority concept to me.
> > 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. This could be aranged with a note at priority low just before the udeb list. Indeed it would be nice to have a warning, but I don't think it's a big problem, because the user can go back and reselect the deselected module anyway at priority low. > - It's quite hard to write a long description for > anna/choose-modules which works in both cases. ACK. > - We shouldn't break automatic installs, when the debconf DB already > has values. I don't see how my suggestion would break automatic installs. Just prefill the value of anna/choose_modules and set the question to seen and you should have full control over which udebs get installed. > > 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). This would also be possible, but I don't see why it should be needed. If you prefer to do it that why, I don't object. My primary concern was about the user-interface. > > 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 ? I don't know. gaudenz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
