#808721 libc6,pam,openssl: avoid negative questions in restart-without-asking debconf knob

Package:
libc6,pam,openssl
Source:
glibc openssl pam
Submitter:
Daniel Shahaf
Date:
2015-12-28 15:21:13 UTC
Severity:
minor
#808721#5
Date:
2015-12-22 07:43:57 UTC
From:
To:
Dear Maintainer,

The restart-without-asking debconf knob is formulated as a negative question:

    Template: libraries/restart-without-asking
    Type: boolean
    Default: false
    _Description: Restart services during package upgrades without asking?

This can be confusing: in my case, I initially thought I should pick "yes"
since I read the question is "would you like to be prompted before restarting
services".

I suggest to change the description to:
..
    _Description: Ask permission to restart services during package upgrades?
..
and accordingly change the default answer to "Yes" (which would not be
a semantic change).

I assume this could be done backwards-compatibly by defining a new knob
(restart-without-asking2) and looking for the current knob name if the new knob
isn't set.

Cheers,

Daniel
#808721#10
Date:
2015-12-25 22:29:42 UTC
From:
To:
control: reassign -1 libc6,pam,openssl
control: retitle -1 libc6,pam,openssl: avoid negative questions in restart-without-asking debconf knob

I am not a native speaker, but I don't see this as problematic. The
default is actually "no", so this mean you are supposed to actually read
the question before changing the default.

I have to say "Ask permission" sounds even more confusing to me, it's
not really clear how is it going to be asked. "would you like to be
prompted" sounds more clear to me.

If we really want to change this, this is not that easy. The template is
shared with pam and openssl, so this need everybody to agree and some
coordination. I am therefore reassigning the bug to this three packages.

Aurelien
#808721#21
Date:
2015-12-27 21:46:39 UTC
From:
To:
Aurelien Jarno wrote on Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 23:29:42 +0100:
default?" subroutine had a false positive.  I believe changing the
template from a negative question to a positive question would make it
less likely to be misunderstood in the future.

Oh.  I didn't realize the template is shared.  I'm not sure this issue
is important enough to justify a cross-package coordination effort;
perhaps it should be closed as WONTFIX / ETOOMUCHEFFORT...

Agreed about your suggested phrasing.

Thanks for the detailed reply!

Cheers,

Daniel