On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 19:08 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le jeudi 11 septembre 2008 à 17:09 +0100, Neil Williams a écrit : > > > The second solution is to specify that these scripts should not be > > > interactive. I don’t think there is much point in it, and it would > > > simplify things a lot. > > > > We've been here before. Some people might value the opportunity to > > refuse permission to include sources lists and other data - any > > non-interactive frontend must make it absolutely clear that this data > > has been included and it is up to the user to delete it. > > Yes, it is the job of the frontend to say “Hey, I’m adding your > configuration files to the report, but you probably want to check if > there’s anything private in them.”
Doing that usually means running the bug script to get the content - is it really that much work to let it be interactive? For non-interactive, yesno() can be a no-op but it might as well call something as simple as 'zenity --title $1 --question --text $2' and check the return value. Even if the frontend doesn't use zenity itself, it is clear that it is trivial for the frontend to make its own version. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
