Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2019 15:12:11 +0100 From: Grzegorz Junka <list1@gjunka.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Cleaning up pkg-message Message-ID: <ec5bedbc-e5e3-9cf7-f84c-64965f0c35ff@gjunka.com> In-Reply-To: <CAP7rwcgpDsTsnL0yE_JZMOfoiTzc0qM_LbKo=pmRpswWCvxShw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAP7rwcgpDsTsnL0yE_JZMOfoiTzc0qM_LbKo=pmRpswWCvxShw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 08/06/2019 19:11, Adam Weinberger wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I want to get some stakeholder input on our pkg-message files. I think > we need to have a clear policy about what does and doesn't belong in > them, and I'd like to get your input. > > pkg-message is shown to every user on every install. UPDATING is only > shown when users run `pkg updating` *and* /usr/ports/UPDATING exists. > I suspect that only a small proportion of users do that. > > pkg-message needs to contain only highly relevant information. Many, > many ports have messages with irrelevant information that users are > likely to get message fatigue and ignore them entirely. I don't want > to pick on Joe Barbish, because his work is absolutely fantastic, but > dns/dns2blackhole/pkg-message is an example of a giant message that > tells users to do the same thing they always do for any port: > ######################################################################## > > dns2blackhole > > Malware Prevention through Domain Blocking (Black Hole) > > Issue "man dns2blackhole" For configuration and usage information > > ######################################################################## > > We now have the ability to specify messages that appear on initial > install, or on upgrades from/to specific version. So here is what I > propose as policy: > > pkg-message must contain only information that is vital to setup and > operation, and that is unique to the port in question. Setup > information should only be shown on initial install, and upgrade > instructions should be shown only when upgrading to the relevant > version. All committers have blanket approval to constrain existing > messages to install/upgrade ranges using the UCL format > specifications. Message pruning falls under the blanket approval as > well, but committers are encouraged to get maintainer input > beforehand. > <<< > > What are your thoughts? > > # Adam I don't like the approach of separating install from update messages. It only works in the ideal scenario, which is almost never. Two reasons: 1. Very rarely I have time to configure all package requirements when installing a bunch of packages. I usually configure a few most important ones and leave the rest for later. Then I need to remember to re-read whatever requirements they might have had. 2. Very rarely just adding packages to the system works. From adding flavours, to removing KDE4, to renaming packages, etc. There is always something going on and almost every time I try to upgrade all packages in the system because of various problems I end up reinstalling all of them anyway (pkg upgrade -f). In either case update messages don't matter. In my opinion there should be just one short message shown when either upgrading or installing. If there are any specific instructions applicable when only installing or upgrading then it's safer to show in both cases with info in what condition they are applicable. When installing packages with many dependencies a typical user isn't even aware which packages have been added / installed and which have been updated. Why make the life more complicated than it needs to be? GrzegorzJ
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ec5bedbc-e5e3-9cf7-f84c-64965f0c35ff>