On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 03:02:51PM -0700, Dan Price wrote: > On Fri 18 Apr 2008 at 02:35PM, Danek Duvall wrote: > > Sure. This is what's currently there. The empty output from the first > > example was what I was asking about, but I'm sure the messaging could be > > improved for all the errors. Here are the local infos: > > > > # In catalog, not installed (exit=0): > > $ pkg info SUNWzsh > > Hmm. This one is the confusing one. Should we print a stub of some > kind saying that the package is "known" Isn't that what "known" is for?
This was the one where I suggested we say it's known to be in the catalog, and to suggest the user run info -r. I could print out the name, a state, and a suggestion in this format? I think I'd rather go with a paragraph here, at least for now. > > Here are the remote infos. Note that the SUNWtcat output is the same as > > for the local case, because there's only one version to be had. If there > > were more than one, and I didn't have the latest installed, it would get > > the information for the latest version from the server. I believe that it > > would say "Not installed" in that case, though we should probably figure > > out how to make it say "Upgradable". > > Yeah. Or we should have a "Local Version" and "Remote Version" > thing in the output... or something. Perhaps, file a bug, so we > have a record that we need to come back around. Sure. > > # In catalog, not installed (exit=0): > > $ pkg info -r SUNWzsh > > Name: SUNWzsh > > Summary: Z shell (zsh) > > State: Not installed > > I didn't think we had a state called "Not Installed"? Stephen had > some very precise opinions about this, see bug #1168. Not about this particular state. I think "Not installed" is about as user-friendly as it can be. I could say "Known", or "In catalog" as pkg-states.txt might dictate, but I think that either of those would be confusing to most people. > > Yeah, I dunno. I'm pretty certain nothing will break because the manifest > > can't be written. Anything where you wouldn't have perms to install will > > fail later now than it would have previously, but that's the only behavior > > change there. As for banging on the server a lot, yeah, I suppose. > > Another wad? > > Yeah-- maybe note it with a bug report. I know you disabled: > > 'pkg info -r' (no argument) > > Should we (or did you?) do the same for "pkg list -as"? That will have the > same effect of pulling down a lot of manifests too as best I can recall. I didn't disable that, no. Given that the gui will be doing the same thing, too, disabling it here won't help much. I'll file a bug and we'll figure out how to manage this. Danek _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
