On 01/04/12 11:24, Chris Quenelle wrote:
Can you change "solaris" to "publisher: solaris" ?
And maybe a label for the package as well?
I've been purposely avoiding labels for those items because of the extra
noise it creates in the output. I might be convinced that the publisher
one needs it, but I have mixed feelings about the package one.
It would be nice to prefix it with either
"package" or "incorporation" or some other informal
description of the package type.
There is no such thing as "package type" though. A package can contain
incorporation dependencies along with other dependency types. So the
only thing that a user can go by is the name.
While all the version components are single digits, the lines
are all nicely lined up. It would be easier to evaluate the long-term
legibility if you would use some two digit numbers in your examples.
Left-justification within the field will be guaranteed for the versions,
so yes, there could be a jagged edge on the right side if version
lengths are variable.
UPDATE SUMMARY
on-nightly
osnet-incorporation
Installed 0.5.11,5.11-0.175.1.0.0.6.18318:20111220T132736Z
Proposed 0.5.11,5.11-0.175.1.0.0.6.18339:20111222T133041Z
pkg5-nightly
consolidation/ips/ips-incorporation
Installed 0.5.11,5.11-0.175.1.0.0.0.2603:20111220T130654Z
Proposed 0.5.11,5.11-0.175.1.0.0.0.2603:20111222T130712Z
How would you explain to an end user (who is only casually familiar
with IPS terms) why the second package has a "consolidatin/ips"
prefix, but the first one shows only a base name?
That's just an oversight in my contrived example. The actual package is
supposed to be printed there, I just failed to notice that I had left
off the consolidation/osnet/ portion of the name.
-Shawn
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
