On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 09:56:51AM -0800, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > aj> You don't need an excuse to not mandate something, you need a damn > aj> good reason to mandate, and a huge amount of current practice to > aj> support it. > Is the reason given by OP not damn good enough?
No, not really. When we can actually support non-interactive installs and the like, then it'll be a good reason to make it a RC bug not so new packages don't break that feature; but until we can and do support it, it definitely should not be a RC bug not to. > And is the overwhelming majority of interactive scripts that _do_ use > debconf already not a huge enough amount? No, it's not "current practice" to use debconf when a bunch of important packages specifically don't use it. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. "Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it. C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who can't deal with deconstructionist humor. Code Blue." -- Mike Hoye, see http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt
