On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 07:22:45PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: > > I beg to disagree here. As long as an appropriate priority is used > > (here, probably low) and the requirements mentioned by Petter are met > > too, I don't see why using debconf for its purpose would harm, > > actually. > > If you use debconf, you can't use dpkg conffile handling, which I find a > disadvantage (speaking as a user/admin, not as a packager.)
but you can still use ucf, which gives very much the same style
of handling as dpkg's conffile handling.
sean
--
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
