Re: The future (or non-future) of ia32-libs
On 06/24/2012 06:01 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 09:32:15PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 06/22/2012 05:34 PM, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>>> Step 1: upgrade/dist-upgrade with ia32-libs (wine, ...) held back
>>> Step 2: dpkg --add-architecture i386 && apt-get update
>>> Step 3: dist-upgrade (ia32-libs, wine, ... is now installable)
>>>
>> May I suggest that upon upgrade, we have a debconf message telling
>> about it? We could add this in base-files or any essential package,
>> probably one with some debconf messages already in would be a better
>> pick. Instructions would show, IF ia32-libs old version is currently
>> installed
>> AND the --add-architecture i386 hasn't bee done.
>>
>> I know we have release notes, but some don't know about them or would
>> simply not read them. A debconf message seem really appropriate IMO.
>
> No, debconf messages are the wrong tool for the job.
>
> Release notes are meant to be read once, not every time you upgrade a
> system. Having a debconf note once might be appropriate. The second
> time, you'll go "right, I've seen that before". The third time you go
> "sigh, yes, I know, fuck off". The fourth time, you hit ctrl-C, and run
> "DEBIAN_FRONTEND=noninteractive apt-get upgrade" -- and then miss
> something that was actually important and didn't occur on previous
> installs.
>
> Please, let's keep upgrade information in the release notes. If some
> people don't read them, that's something we should try to fix; not by
> trying to work around the release notes, but by making them more
> accessible, easier to find, and more obvious instead.
Well, if you update apt + dpkg first, then --add-architecture i386, and
*then only* dist-upgrade (or if we manage to update apt / dpkg in
stable, so that it does that automatically), it wouldn't display the
debconf. So if you were doing lots of upgrades, it would display the
debconf screen only if you do the mistake to forget about the
--add-architecture i386. So I don't think that my proposal is an abuse
of debconf as you describe.
Thomas
Reply to: