On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 02:15:39PM -0700, Brock Pytlik wrote: > I guess we just have different opinions about what our user base looks > like, and neither of us has data to back it up, except for the > complaints we've received about current approaches. It's not just about
"The squeaky wheel gets the grease". Problem is: what if this fix leads to more complaints? Sure, I can't prove it will happen, but it stands to reason. > saving disk space, it's about providing the information needed to make > group packages work. Several times we've been told that the current > system of 'pkg install amp-dev'; 'pkg uninstall amp-dev' leaving large > numbers of applications on your system isn't helpful. This is needed to > fix that issue. It has the bonus of also making uninstall more generally > work as our users have told us they expect it to work. Perhaps we need pkg uninstall to have an option to consider or disregard user intent? That'd be a good middle of the road. > Also, this will let us handle things like a package being obsoleted, so > it's removed from your system. Then it's resurrected. Now, do you want > that package back on your system or not? Well, that depends on whether > you manually removed the package yourself, or it was removed because it > was obsolete. If it was obsoleted then you didn't need it any longer. That it gets resurrected cannot imply that you want it back, but certainly it shouldn't cause harm to add it back (provided services it installs and what not is disabled by default). > If you're right and we tick off a large number of users, we can always > put things back the way it was before. Yes, I said as much. Just beware. _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
