Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> writes: > On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 07:43:29PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I think at this point, now that debconf is mandatory for all but >> essential packages, removing the guarantee of a controlling terminal is >> uncontroversial. This bug has been open for a while and I'd like to >> put it to bed. Here's proposed wording. I'm looking for feedback or >> seconds. > Should it be spelled out here that in the case of questions that don't > have a reasonable default answer (priority high or higher), an > acceptable action for the maintainer script to take when running > non-interactively is to abort? That's probably not a bad idea. I was thinking about that, and wasn't sure, but if you also feel the same way, we should probably say something. I'm also not sure that I was right in my previous message about using the exit status of tty, since it still does make sense to prompt if run via ssh <host> aptitude upgrade. But I don't know how to detect that case as different from a truly non-interactive install. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
