On 1/13/2018 5:55 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
On 1/13/2018 4:29 PM, Brian Inglis wrote:
On 2018-01-13 12:56, Ken Brown wrote:
2. We should probably remove, or at least reword, the dire warning about
accepting the default solutions. I'm not sure we want to "strongly
recommend"
the default solution over the other solution(s). I guess what we
really want to
say is that we strongly recommend resolving the problems before
continuing.
For users who only run setup and use programs, a dire warning and strong
recommendations are appropriate.
Alternatives are to also remove all packages dependent on the package
to be
removed, or lastly, to remove only the requested package, leaving the
installation inconsistent. Those alternatives would have to be
presented to the
user for selection, then executed.
Anything else requiring the user to resolve would require a FAQ entry
explaining
what that meant, what diagnosis and actions would be required, and
that would
probably generate emails from users asking what they should do.
Better to allow the solver to resolve issues and just let users choose
straightforward alternatives, with the view of trying to keep the
installation
consistent, unless explicitly overridden, such as to test an alternative
implementation of a dependency installed outside of setup.
The current situation on the topic/libsolv branch is the following.
Suppose A requires B and the user asks to uninstall B. They will get a
problem report showing two possible solutions:
1. Uninstall A.
2. (default) Don't uninstall B.
If they uncheck 'Accept default solutions' and select 'Next', they'll
get a warning that says "We strongly recommend that you accept the
default solutions. Some packages may not work properly if you don't.
Are you sure you want to proceed?"
This is misleading insofar as it implies that something bad will happen
if the user prefers to solve the problem by uninstalling A. What is
true is that some packages may not work properly if the user answers 'Yes'.
I think we should be able to find wording that is accurate while still
making it clear that we recommend going back and fixing the problem. I
don't yet have a good candidate for that wording.
Something like the attached might do the job.
Ken
>From d15d18dfa4db91416155385034bccf31be88ece3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ken Brown <kbr...@cornell.edu>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 18:50:14 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] Clarify the unsolved-problems warning
If the user unchecks the 'Accept default solutions' box and selects
'Next', don't imply that choosing a non-default solution would break
their system.
---
prereq.cc | 7 +++----
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/prereq.cc b/prereq.cc
index a03e79b..4926c65 100644
--- a/prereq.cc
+++ b/prereq.cc
@@ -96,10 +96,9 @@ PrereqPage::OnNext ()
{
// breakage imminent! danger, danger
int res = MessageBox (h,
- "We strongly recommend that you accept the default solutions. "
- "Some packages may not work properly if you don't."
+ "Some packages may not work properly if you continue."
"\r\n\r\n"
- "Are you sure you want to proceed?",
+ "Are you sure you want to proceed (NOT RECOMMENDED)?",
"WARNING - Unsolved Problems",
MB_YESNO | MB_ICONEXCLAMATION | MB_DEFBUTTON2);
if (res == IDNO)
@@ -107,7 +106,7 @@ PrereqPage::OnNext ()
else
{
Log (LOG_PLAIN) <<
- "NOTE! User refused the default solutions! "
+ "NOTE! User continued with unsolved problems! "
"Expect some packages to give errors or not function at all." <<
endLog;
// Change the solver's transaction list to reflect the user's
choices.
db.solution.db2trans();
--
2.15.1
