2009. 09. 15, kedd keltezéssel 21.18-kor James Rayner ezt írta: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 9:14 PM, James Rayner <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Dan McGee <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> I don't really know what to think here. I had looked at that messages > >> one for a long time and thought it was a decent idea, but never went > >> far enough to take it and run with it. > >> > >> @Loui- sure, but this is for extraordinary messages- a lot more > >> exclusive than ChangeLog-worthy stuff, and you have to explicitly > >> request to see that anyway. > >> > >> @Jeff- it isn't exactly straightforward to view an install script > >> beforehand, and the post_install business is a rather hacky reason for > >> needing an install script. > >> > >> -Dan > >> > > > > Dan's got the idea... > > > > pacman should not break someone's system without at least telling them > > first. So yes - this is intended for more extraordinary messages. > > > > The current ways of informing the user (homepage/forum news and > > post-install) are broken and non-simple: > > - both polling based > oh, and post-install is after the fact - when the system is broken, so > it's not a very good way of informing the user that their system "will > break" because it's already broken. > > Anyway, I'm all for a more generalised/ideal setup, but that's been > wanted for a while with no patches coming forward. >
OK. Here is my staindpont (not closely related to iphitus's patch, but some thoughts about the "problem"): 1. echo lines in install scriplets are stupid. I bet that you also looked into install scriplets in /var/lib/pacman/... many times manually to read that information on an installed package (when something went wrong). I think this requires a new %INFO% field in (local) database, which could be accessed by -Q. Drawback: pre_install, post_install, pre_upgrade etc. is more sophisticated. (It is possible to only print info if we upgrade version older than...) 2. I am not sure about the pre-transaction messages. We ask for user confirmation before downloading packages, so in order to print info/alarm etc. messages then, we _must_ store this info in sync database, or interrupt the transaction once more before actual install. post-transaction messages are easier to implement, see 1. Iphitus chooses putting %ALERT% to syncdb. Overall, I think iphitus's patch is a good compromise, if we want to distinguish important and non-important messages. My problem is that I don't see when the packager should remove %ALERT% from package, in 1.0-2, 1.1-2, 2.0-1? When I've read (and understood) the alert message, printing it again is just a spam. Bye
