Stephen Hahn wrote: > * Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-07-25 19:48]: >> Stephen Hahn wrote: >>> You're both right. Both incorporating and group packages should have >>> optional dependencies, but group packages should have a package tag >>> that says, "for install, include optional dependencies", so that users >>> (and GUIs) don't need to remember some variable flag. Perhaps >>> pkg.policy.install_optional? >> Assuming you're talking about a package specific policy and not a global >> one that a user/administrator manages. > > Yes, although a similar image-wide one has been discussed.
Would the image-wide one break the expected behaviour of packages with their own specified policy? I just don't want to get into a situation where policy settings alter the expected behaviour of a "convenience package" like ss-dev. >> With most incorporation or group packages, I believe that the user is >> inherently committing to installing optional dependencies so policy >> controls (or prompts) shouldn't be necessary for them. > > No: examine pkg:/entire (the ur-incorporation) and contrast with > ss-dev. The user's commitments for each of these two classes of > package (and the reasons that a distribution producer would introduce > them) are different. I had already thought about "entire" which is why I said "most" and not all :-) It just seems like there should be a way with a given package type to clearly divine the user's intent without having to complicate matters with additional command-line options or policies. >> We also need to be more informative about what we are installing. As much >> really be nice to get prompted if installing a package is going to install >> additional dependencies. > > I don't think the latter is necessary, actually. Dan's still poking > around verbose and debug, but I agree about having more output > available. There are certainly many improvements to be made upon that process, but it seems like common courtesy to let the user know that they asked for X, but they're going to Y and Z as well for many reasons (disk space, bandwidth, etc.). That to me is something that isn't really "verbose" or "debug" information -- that's just a normal, expected part of the install process. I realise that there is a fine line to walk here between automated software management and interactive software management. Yet, I believe user's expectations are going to be painted by their past experiences with other systems and as such, they're going to expect us to behave similarly in certain cases. Cheers, -- Shawn Walker _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
