On Wednesday January 4, at 11:40AM, Shawn Walker wrote: > 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.
Is there anything else I need to do to convince you to add "publisher:" ? :-) I'm willing to drop my request for a package "kind" as long as the full path is always printed. I was worried about the typo that you acknowledged below. > >> 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. okay. > >> 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. I'm not concerned about the jagged right edge, I'm concerned about how hard it is to see which digit constitutes an SRU update and which ones are for respins, etc. The 6-part version numbers are going to be gobbledy goop to anyone outside the Oracle Systems org. It might be a nice RFE to be able to load a schema into an IPS repo that would simply allocate field names to version components. The the pkg command could use those field names in certain output formats. Probably the schema could be assigned on a repo-wide basis? It seems like a tangent, but it's related to readability, so that's why I bring it up. > >>> 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
