On Wednesday 20 August 2008, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> After breaking it down, the patch do not appear so big and I would
> be in favour of commiting these changes.
Sure, go ahead. The first part should IMO either be last or last-but-one
though as it is related to stepping the progress bar for each
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 07:41:05AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> Attached (tested) patch is what I had in mind (based on similar code in
> base-installer). It assigns 1% of the progress bar to each hook script
> with a maximum of 10% for all hook scripts. For popcon I've just dropped
> the advanceme
Jérémy Bobbio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 06:33:12PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
>> Because not only is there absolutely no need for them to do so, it is also
>> seriously fragile to expect random hook scripts to output nothing else
>> than their progress bar end position.
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 06:33:12PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> Because not only is there absolutely no need for them to do so, it is also
> seriously fragile to expect random hook scripts to output nothing else
> than their progress bar end position.
The patch handles any script output and log it.
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 06:45:19PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> In all other cases where we use hook scripts we advance the progress
> bar by some fixed amount per hook script. The only additional feature
> here is that some hook scripts can usefully subdivide their allotted
> bit.
I have only took a
Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 31 July 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> > I don't really like the idea of hook scripts determining how the main
>> > script works.
>>
>> Could you clarify why?
>
> Because not only is there absolutely no need for them to do so, it is also
> seri
On Friday 01 August 2008, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> As far as my imagination goes, the problem in this approach lies in the
> debconf-apt-progress interface. It takes:
> --from --to
>
> debconf-apt-progress is used (at least) by the popcon pre-pkgsel.d
> script. So we would at least need to chan
On Thursday 31 July 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > I don't really like the idea of hook scripts determining how the main
> > script works.
>
> Could you clarify why?
Because not only is there absolutely no need for them to do so, it is also
seriously fragile to expect random hook scripts to out
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 12:30:27PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 July 2008, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> > One solution to solve this would be to change the API of pre-pkgsel.d
> > scripts. They could have the current progress step as their
> > command-line argument and echo the standard outpu
Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday 29 July 2008, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
>> One solution to solve this would be to change the API of pre-pkgsel.d
>> scripts. They could have the current progress step as their
>> command-line argument and echo the standard output the new progress
>> s
On Tuesday 29 July 2008, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> One solution to solve this would be to change the API of pre-pkgsel.d
> scripts. They could have the current progress step as their
> command-line argument and echo the standard output the new progress
> step.
Wouldn't it be better to use a fixed ra
Jérémy Bobbio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Attached is a patch set implementing this solution. The last patch adds
> a default stepping by 1 for each pre-pkgsel.d script. I thought it was
> a nice addition and it can easily be removed.
>
> What do you think?
The patch is very simple and clear.
Package: pkgsel
Version: 0.21
Severity: minor
Before pkgsel 0.21, the progress bar had progress points between 0 and
100, with the following steps:
0initialization
1after retrieving debconf-apt-progress configuration
1-5 installation of popcon
5-90 tasksel
o
13 matches
Mail list logo
