Please respect my mail headers. Mail-Copies-To: nobody X-No-CC: I subscribe to this list; do not CC me on replies.
On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 09:10:31AM -0500, Bryan W. Headley wrote: > You should only have it one of two ways: it overwrites the configuration > file, but does so correctly, Heh. Sometimes there is no "correct" configuration. Some cards simply don't work under XFree86 4.x. What then? > or it assumes you are knowledgeable enough with vi to cook the > XF86Config file. (I'm in the latter group, BTW) In which you case you decline to let debconf manage your XF86Config-4 file. > You can't have a tool that presents the veneer of knowing what it's > doing clobbering stuff. It presents the same issue that people accuse > rpm of having: it's not smart enough to do an upgrade correctly. *shrug* Whether I do so depends on whether people perceive a "veneer" of the XFree86 X server supporting their video hardware. Oftentimes they assume it does. > My opinion, worth $0.02: need to rig interaction with discover, > Xautoconf, kudzu, or (tool du jour) to pre-populate answers, to do > sanity check against debconf. I'm going to be revamping the debconf stuff after I release 4.2.1-1. In the meantime, patches are much more welcome than "scattershot" griping. For what it's worth, it's always fascinating when people argue vehemently on behalf of the needs of a group whose needs they don't share. My Debconf setup for X has received a lot of praise from people who are intimidated by the XF86Config-4 file; most of the people who complain about it are those who aren't so intimidated. So instead they armchair my tool instead of being constructive. -- G. Branden Robinson | Damnit, we're all going to die; Debian GNU/Linux | let's die doing something *useful*! [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Hal Clement, on comments that http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | space exploration is dangerous
pgpelqFDA2XeE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
