On 01/25/12 06:05, Liane Praza wrote:
On 1/24/12 5:08 PM, Shawn Walker wrote:
On 01/24/12 16:48, Liane Praza wrote:
This is looking good, Shawn. I have some mostly minor comments.
On 1/12/12 4:28 PM, Shawn Walker wrote:
END-USER EXAMPLES
=================
# pkg update -n
...
PACKAGE CHANGE SUMMARY
solaris
entire
I know you said you're not convinced yet, but this is a bit opaque to
me, especially as we get to the subsequent examples in END-USER. I'd
really wonder about combining them on the same line with some labeling.
Hmm. I was trying to avoid showing the same publisher multiple times if
multiple incorporations are shown to be updating; this is similar to the
current output you see from 'pkg update -nv'.
I'm open to suggestions here as I can't seem to find a display format
that is easy on the eye. Some possibilities I can think of quickly are
(note I purposefully omitted version text for layout clarity below):
One other possibility. What about the "package (publisher)" layout
currently used in pkg list? e.g. entire (solaris)? Looking through your
examples below, the thing that's hardest on the eye for me is when the
publisher is on a separate line than the incorporation, and with no
labeling. I end up having to engage my brain more to differentiate
what's the publisher versus what's the package (especially with
"entire"). And I very much want to know that information. Repeating the
publisher when necessary doesn't bug me, especially if it's on the same
line as the package.
consolidation/osnet/osnet-incorporation (on-nightly)
Installed:
Proposed:
Latest:
consolidation/ips/ips-incorporation (pkg5-nightly)
Installed:
Proposed:
Latest:
Other than that, format 3/4 is most appealing to me. I'm on the fence
about the whitespace between packages. It's probably useful, but I don't
feel super strongly.
Another thing to note is that I'm trying to fit all of this output in 80
columns so it doesn't wrap by default. That's why in many cases, the
actual version of a package will be shown on the following line if there
is a pkg.human-version. However, if there's enough room to fit both on
the same line, it will do that. I admit this makes the cases that would
wrap less readable in some regards, but that seemed preferable to
letting the text wrap.
Hmm; combining the ideas then (best viewed with a monospace font):
Example A
=========
Package: entire (solaris)
Installed: FCS Build 2 (0.5.11-0.175.0.0.0.2.0)
Latest: SRU 2 Build 3 (0.5.11-0.175.0.2.0.3.0)
Proposed: SRU 1 Build 2 (0.5.11-0.175.0.1.0.2.0)
Example B
=========
Package: entire (solaris)
Installed: FCS Build 2 (0.5.11-0.175.0.0.0.2.0)
Proposed (Latest): SRU 2 Build 3 (0.5.11-0.175.0.2.0.3.0)
Example B
=========
Package: consolidation/osnet/osnet-incorporation (solaris)
Installed: Update 1 Build 6 Nightly 18318 (0.5.11-0.175.1.0.0.6.18318)
Latest: Update 1 Build 6 Nightly 18756 (0.5.11-0.175.1.0.0.6.18756)
Proposed: Update 1 Build 6 Nightly 18339 (0.5.11-0.175.1.0.0.6.18339)
Package: consolidation/ips/ips-incorporation (pkg5-nightly)
Installed: Update 1 Build 6 Nightly 18318 (0.5.11-0.175.1.0.0.6.18318)
Latest: Update 1 Build 6 Nightly 18756 (0.5.11-0.175.1.0.0.6.18756)
Proposed: Update 1 Build 6 Nightly 18339 (0.5.11-0.175.1.0.0.6.18339)
Example C
=========
Package: consolidation/osnet/osnet-incorporation (solaris)
Installed: Update 1 Build 6 Nightly 18318
(0.5.11-0.175.1.0.0.6.18318)
Proposed (Latest): Update 1 Build 6 Nightly 18756
(0.5.11-0.175.1.0.0.6.18756)
Package: consolidation/ips/ips-incorporation (pkg5-nightly)
Installed: Update 1 Build 6 Nightly 18318
(0.5.11-0.175.1.0.0.6.18318)
Proposed (Latest): Update 1 Build 6 Nightly 18756
(0.5.11-0.175.1.0.0.6.18756)
I couldn't decide whether to use "Latest (Proposed)" or "Proposed
(Latest)" above. Bleh.
...
DEVELOPER EXAMPLES
==================
These examples assume 'entire' has been removed:
# pkg update -n
...
PACKAGE CHANGE SUMMARY
on-nightly
consolidation/osnet/osnet-incorporation
Installed: Update 1 Build 6 Nightly 18318
(0.5.11-0.175.1.0.0.6.18318)
Proposed: Update 1 Build 6 Nightly 18339
(0.5.11-0.175.1.0.0.6.18339)
pkg5-nightly
consolidation/ips/ips-incorporation
Installed: 0.5.11-0.175.1.0.0.0.2603:20111220T130654Z
Proposed: 0.5.11-0.175.1.0.0.0.2603:20111222T130712Z
...
Shows an update from a previous nightly to a newer one.
'osnet-incorporation' is shown because it is the top-level of the
install-hold chain (in this case, 'core-os.os-net') and
'ips-incorporation' because it is also at the top-level
('core-os.ips').
No other incorporations are changing so they are not listed.
Might I suggest printing these in reverse publisher order, if you aren't
already? That is, show the first publisher last (under the theory the
first publisher is most important)?
I assume you're referring to which order I print the publishers and
their packages that are changing. In that case, I had chosen lexical
order specifically since that makes it easier to find things in the
output for most users I think, rather than publisher search order.
What's the reasoning for showing them in publisher search order instead
of lexical order?
I was wondering if the most preferred was the most interesting to lots
of folks, and thus if you printed in least preferred to most preferred
order, you'd end up with the most interesting thing to them closest to
their cursor.
(But, this is a nit at best. I'm not sure it matters much.)
Publisher search order is probably reasonable, since most customers will
only ever see the 'solaris' publisher anyway.
I could certainly see publisher search order being more useful for ON
developers and the like.
-Shawn
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
