   On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 02:28:26PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann
wrote: > AFAICT debconf is intended and presently advocated as a
way to prompt > for defaults if they are absolutely needed.
Specifically, it is not > intended as a way to store stuff.  It
is not intended to be the authoritative source of configuration
information for the system.  It most definitely *is* intended as
a way to store stuff: it must be, in order for the config and
postinst scripts to reliably communicate with one another.  >
How does your request correspond with the "debconf is not a
registry" > mantra? Basically you seem to be advocating what
many people have called > debconf abuse.  You seem to
misunderstand rather badly.  No one here is saying that bugs
that cause modified configs to be overwritten should not be
corrected, only that the right way to address these bugs is by
fixing the debconf support -- not by removing it.  > One of the
obvious things that got asked multiple but that none of the >
'keep debconf promt'ers answered is: