Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: > Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: >>> Michael Biebl wrote: >>>> Giacomo Catenazzi wrote: >>>> >>>>> For these two reason (power and security), I think Debian should offer >>>>> a debconf question, (medium priority), about disabling pooling. >>>> Sorry, but this is certainly not going to happen. >>> Why not? Is it so bad to give user a choice? >> >> No, it's bad to misuse debconf though. > > powertop recommend to disable hal polling. > (note: powertop is not a school project)
Then *maybe* it should be disabled by default, but that's not an excuse to misuse debconf IMHO. >>>> The blacklist for faulty drives on the other hand, installed by >>>> default, might >>>> indeed be a good idea though. >>> but a blacklist is only a helper, it would not have the complete list of >>> broken hardware, and updates on stable are slow. >>> So users need to override (easily) the decision (e.g. with the debconf >>> question). >> >> No, users should file bugs if their HW is broken so that those can be >> blacklisted too. > > Are you joking? No > For one year that user could not use debian stable? a) There are point releases. b) The user can still disable polling even without a debconf question. Cheers, Emilio
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
