On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 10:56:50AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: > Anthony Towns wrote: > > The first paragraph of that section states: > > ``The package installation scripts should avoid producing output > > which it (sic) is unnecessary for the user to see and should rely > > on `dpkg' to stave off boredom on the part of a user installing > > many packages. [...]'' > > The fourth paragraph continues: > > ``If a package has a vitally important piece of information to pass to > > the user [...] it should display this in the `postinst' script and > > prompt the user to hit return to acknowledge the message.'' > Well I'd never really read those two paragraphs side by side I must > confess. Likewise. > > The sorts of information which currently get displayed, but which don't > > get prompted for, are things like "Restarting internet superserver: > > inetd", or "Updating /etc/network/interfaces: succeeded". > Or <40 lines of garbage ralating to byte-compiling obscure emacs modules>. Well, yes. "Bytecompiling emacs modules: emacs19 emacs20 xemacs20" would be useful output, by comparison. > > To me, those sorts of outputs seem useful and helpful > Some of them, a lot are massively useless debug output. Yeah, sure. It's the some that I'm interested in though. :) So, how about something like: Packages should briefly report the main tasks as they undertake them, in a similar manner to that used in init scripts, but should avoid producing unnecessary or overly verbose output. If a package has a vitally important piece of information to pass to the user [...same paragraph, moved up a bit] Packages should try to minimize the amount of prompting [...] ? Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and working code.'' -- Dave Clark
Attachment:
pgpHuAUopXo8q.pgp
Description: PGP signature