Am Dienstag, den 15.09.2009, 15:09 +0200 schrieb Marc - A. Dahlhaus [ Administration | Westermann GmbH ]: > Am Dienstag, den 15.09.2009, 22:53 +1000 schrieb Allan McRae: > > Nagy Gabor wrote: > > > 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. > > > > > > > That point is what I have been thinking about all day but there is no > > easy solution there as far as I can tell. I have the same issue with > > deciding when to remove provides lines... > > > > Allan > > How about detaching the alerts from the actual package itself and add it > only to the repo like we do for deltas? We then could add a logic to it > to just print it for versions older than the flagged version by > default... > > This of course needs some new tools for the repo to add/modify/remove > alerts. > > I think this could be a way around this problem... > > Marc
OT: is there a tool for removing deltas from repo archives?
