[08:18] <cjwatson> ev: I dunno.  I do sort of agree with Joey, and I hate the idea of keeping a patch like that against debconf forever.  Is there a strong reason for us to push it?
[11:00] <ev> cjwatson: we could enable debug mode by default during development and not have to ask people to run through the installer a second time (especially when they've since completed a successful install).
[11:03] <ev> is there a reason why it's considered a hack?  Other than the regex on "SET " it seems quite clean, and I can't see why the aforementioned bit is that bad.
[11:03] <ev> err rather, "why do you consider it a hack"
[12:51] <cjwatson> ev: having to parse the command twice is pretty ugly, but the really ugly bit is having to figure out the question type right at the start like that
[12:51] <cjwatson> ev: maybe we could have that hack in debconf just during development, not sure
[12:52] <cjwatson> I think I would strongly prefer it not to be present for release
[12:52] <ev> that sounds like a reasonable compromise if we cannot come up with anything better.
[14:14] <CIA-3> partman-base: cjwatson * r210 ubuntu/ (68 files in 3 dirs): merge from Debian 141
[14:14] <ubottu> Error: Debian bug 141 could not be found
[14:21] <CIA-3> partman-base: cjwatson * r211 ubuntu/debian/changelog: releasing version 141ubuntu1