On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 08:44:08PM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
I understand, but IMO that may/should involve improving Debconf if necessary.Sure. Improvements won't hurt.And while waiting for improvements to debconf to occur, the larger packaging ecosystem will benefit from adding custom debconf code, I believe.It's not rocket science. I don't see why you'd waste time on a work around when you could be spending time on the solution.
Feel free to improve Debocnf. I won't stop you - on the contrary :-D
git-buildpackage) which I imagine you wouldn't want to adopt just to get me involved.Why would a change be necessary before you can get involved?Instead of debating that, let's try the opposite:Would you be interested in teaming up with me in maintaining lighttpd for Debian?Due to my personal streamlining (I am involved in 140+ packages), I require all packages that I am involved in to use CDBS and git-buildpackage.Seems a bit silly to require others to use the tools you prefer just because that's easier for you.
Then I am silly. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
