>> On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 10:28:57 -0500,
>> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> If the package maintainers are correctly using the debconf
> priorities, and the admin has chosen a debconf priority that
> accurately reflects their preferences, why do you care? By
> definition, any prompts at priority medium or lower have reasonable
> defaults, so unless they're shown to the admin *at his choice*, and
> the admin actively *chooses* a non-default value, the configuration
> file won't be changed anyway.
OK, this is what bugs me. If I have a choice -- if I may chose
to be prompted every time, and if I have the choice, every time, to
look at the changes, and _then_ decide ot keep the old or move to the
new, I have no problem.
It is an added bonus if I could have upstream changes merged
into my local configuration file when I so desire (use the diff
between the upstream maintainer files and patch it into my local
file), but that is gravy.
What I do not like is being as ked to make a decision about
all future upgrades *NO*, when I have no idea what the changes are
going to look like.
If you give users a choice replace configuration files in the
future: 'ask or 'always (pathologically, even 'never), I would be
happy.
Assuming it is 'always is wrong.
Giving user a choice of 'always, or "You are on your own,
buddy" is also wrong.
manoj
--
Flee at once, all is discovered.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
