On 18 December 2016 at 21:32, Leonid Isaev <leonid.is...@jila.colorado.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 02:25:00PM -0600, David C. Rankin wrote: > > I know this is small-potatoes stuff, but I just wonder if in these > > instances, it may not be better to either provide pre-update notice or > do a > > post-install script rather than relying on a post update action by the > user? > > At least in the cases where you know up-front that existing > functionality will > > be disabled by the upgrade. (which was apparent from the comment) > > Hmm, what about reading /var/log/pacman.log? > > A log is great for figuring out what went happened after something broke, but it shouldn't have to be part of a normal upgrade procedure in my opinion. Personally I do think the provided message was enough though. I'd be a bit scared if package maintainers would add scripts to automatically rename files. This case might have been safe, but in general it is impossible for package maintainers to predict what users may have done to their system and how post-upgrade scripts would interact with that. I'm very happy that Arch lets the user (the one who knows the system best) deal with this type of problem. -- Maarten
