Hi Sylvain, let me first explain my personal background: I am a member of the german translation team, therefore, I deal with a lot of translations. Since it takes me time to translate, I feel a bit angree, if there are debconf strings to be translate, but are never used actually be debconf.
Also I know many "typical" debconf questions. When debconf is used by other
packages, and when not. And mldonkey-server imho simply asks questions that
are unnecessary (a typical so called "debconf misuse").
Also, I am a mldonkey user.
> Well, i have tried to play with priority of debconf questions to remove
> technical question for basic user (ie they are still there for
> advanced user).
OK. But I still think that some could be removed still, I explain below.
> I will try to explain why, i cannot remove some options.
>
> > In #279030 it was agreed (afaict) that these should be removed from
> > debconf. However, they are still used:
> > mldonkey-server/mldonkey_group (set at 'mldonkey')
> > mldonkey-server/run_as_user (set at 'mldonkey')
>
> A lot of user use VFAT mounted dir for /var/lib/mldonkey that required
> very specific user to be accessed.
Then imho the debian way to go for these users would be to change /etc/fstab
to mount /var/lib/mldonkey with the mldonkey user. This would be clear and
straightforward imho. So this could be removed imho.
> > not 100% sure, but should afaikt also be removed from debconf:
> > mldonkey-server/mldonkey_dir (could be set to /var/lib/mldonkey/)
>
> A lot of user use extra disk mounted following some strange layout
> (/mnt/free0...). Off course they can do a symlink...
Let these users do a symlink. If these users prefer a strange layout for their
filesystem it's there fault. And actually they really should not prefer a
strange layout anyway. So I still think, this should be removed.
I mean apache also refers to /var/www automatically -- if a user rather wants
to publish webpages from /mnt/whatever, then a) it is their fault and b) this
should not be supported by having apache ask a debconf question.
> > mldonkey-server/mldonkey_umask (could be set to 0022)
>
> Well, this one is really optional!
OK, then please remove it :-)
> > IMHO these should be removed as well (just my 2 cents), because there is
> > the mldonkey very own configuration program for this (web ui, gtk or
> > ...). Amule or nicotine also do not come with such questions:
>
> FYI: i never use amule/nicotine and i don't know how they work/what
> debconf question they are asking.
>
> Amule and nicotine are GUI clientis, they required to be run as user
> running X window. MLDonkey is a daemon running in background.
Amule is the linux equivalent of emule (GUI), nicotine is a gtk-soulseek
client (very similar to the windows soulseek client). I use both. None of
them ask debconf questions because, you can set these things up yourself in
their settings.
One can do the same for mldonkey-server using its configuration setup, either
by means of telnet, the web ui or the gtk. Whatever way a user prefers to
contact the daemon.
I do not understand why you ask questions, that belong the mldonkey's daemon
settings section. I mean, if you ask for the client name, upload rate etc.,
why don't you also ask for the port that should be used?
It would be easier, if a user should/would have to use the mldonkey-server own
settings configuration (via telnet, web ui or gui), because this is also the
it is explained in the forums and the mldonkey faq.
> I do
> really thinks that installing gedit doesn't require to answer 10 debconf
> questions but i don't think that needing to answer 5 questions for
> installing openldap/exim4/ntpd is really so hard.
For exim4 etc. it is ok, but in this case, imho it is unnessary. Have a look
at the forums, all Suse/Redhat/Mac/windows/whatever users feel fine to set up
the max_upload/which_dirs_to_share/etc. themselves using the way mentioned in
the faq/forums, i.e. to use telnet/web ui/gui/manually edit *.ini/whatever.
>
> MLDonkey is not a GUI, it requires configuration as a daemon.
I can be configured using telnet/web ui. Even if there is debconf, one still
has to input something to the daemon. Otherwise one cannot search/download
for files. And if one has to connect to the daemon, one can also setup the
configuration the way it is designed by upstream.
> Mldonkey-gui is a GUI and you don't have to answer any debconf questions
> for it (as for amule).
Amule bundles a gui and daemon (technically not 100% right), as does nicotine,
still they ask no questions on e.g. max_upload.
>
> > mldonkey-server/client_name
> > mldonkey-server/plugin
>
> OK for this two: they are optional.
OK, Please remove them. Save me and ten other translator quite some time ;-)
>
> > mldonkey-server/max_hard_upload_rate
> > mldonkey-server/max_hard_download_rate
>
> There is no sane default:
> if i set it to 0 (no limit), it can block the internet access (well you
> can say that TCP can manage the flow control...). If i set to something
> small (1), a lot of user will come and ask me why mldonkey is so slow
> (not everybody read README file). I cannot guess if the user got
> 56k/ADSL/T1 connection, so i really don't know what should be the good
> rate...
There is also no sane default for amule/xmule/nicotine/gtk-gnutella/limewire.
The user eithers knows how to use the program's configuration settings. Or
reads the faq/forums on how to do it the way the upstream has thought of
setting the max_upload.
> > This could be removed as well after the group/user settings are fixed:
> > mldonkey-server/reown_file
> >
> > Do you agree?
>
> See above, i agree on 3 options. But i am still wondering, since
> priority has been changed, what is the problem with asking questions ? (
> i don't remember exactly but i think i manage to drop the number of
> question when only following medium questions to 5).
So you somewhat agreed, that the questions are unnecessary for most users. I
would say they are for all, because there are better ways to fix the oddness
of some users (like vfat mounting or strange file system layout; see above
for better ways the users should go if they decide to do strange things).
> Debconf questions have been really a long problem: people ask for more
> settings/people ask for less settings. I don't know what to choose (and
> it is hard to choose).
The people who ask do not know about the upstream way on setting things up.
They want a debconf question for the port/chat_settings/etc, they should read
the faq on mldonkey.org.
> Please, tell me why you are so keen on removing debconf questions ?
I hope I could :-)
HAND,
Jens
--
jabber-chat: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpPncs3ZNCyt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
