On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 06:53:47PM +0100, Andy Koppe wrote: >On 12 August 2010 15:03, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:26:33PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>>On Aug 12 11:10, Jon TURNEY wrote: >>>> On 12/08/2010 06:44, Andy Koppe wrote: >>>> >Shall we tone down the error box here a little bit? A postinstall >>>> >failure in some obscure package that might only have been installed >>>> >due to the user selecting 'All' won't actually impact on the use of >>>> >Cygwin. I think the current wording will unnecessarily scare off >>>> >unexperienced users who wouldn't know how to correct these failures. >>>> > >>>> I agree, I was going to suggest something like this. ??I'm afraid I >>>> just copied and adjusted the text from the dependencies declined >>>> dialog. >>>> >>>> It might be better to point to setup.log.full since it seems that >>>> contains the actual output from the failing command, and only from >>>> the most recent run of setup. >>> >>>Yes, that sounds like a good idea to me. >> >> I think that wording will still cause consternation. >> >> Maybe we need something like: >> >> "This does not necessarily mean that the affected package will fail to >> function properly but if you do notice problems please check >> /var/log/setup.log.full ." > >How about removing the popup box and amending the postinstall results >page along those lines?
I think removing the MessageBox is a good idea but I still think we should be slightly more reassuring about the errors. This might just be a temporary thing as package maintainers fix the problems in their scripts; assuming that they actually do that. So far the response has not been overwhelming. But assuming that the problems are all fixed then we can drop the assurance in a couple of months. cgf