On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 11:07:06PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 10:28:05PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 22:00:34 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Well, using debconf is packaging. > > > Well, i disagree > > > > > You are makind debconfification much more complicated than it really > > > needs to be :) > > > > Yaird is available for redhat as well. Is debconf available for redhat? > > > > If not, then the use of debconf either needs to be separated from the > > tool itself (what I call the packaging - call it whatever you like) or > > indeed it gets rather complicated! > > Indeed, you need to split out all user interaction in their own perl module, > which can use either debconf or normal stuff, but this does by no way need any > of the other stuff you where talking about.
Two considerations: * Keeping the core portable across distros seems worthwhile to me, even if it's only to create additional testing opportunities. Using debconf in the core plays ill with this approach. * The core is complicated enough for my taste without being interactive. You're welcome to build a wrapper around yaird that interprets error messages, talks debconf to the user and restarts yaird after fixing whatever errors found, but it does not strike me as a very promissing approach ... Regards, Erik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
