Re: RFC: allow output from maintainer scripts
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 03:28:09PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > 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.
> Anything would be useful by comparison (and let's not even talk about
> the packages that spew tex output to the screen and what users think
> about that).
>
> But consider: one of these emacs packages is installing and
> it byte-compiles ok. Why should we display the message? Remember
> staving off boredom is not an answer.
``Policy shouldn't say packages should do such and such, because policy
says packages shouldn't do such and such.'' isn't much of an argument.
I think explaining what's happening so a user can diagnose what's meant
to be happening if something hangs is useful, whether it's staving off
someone's boredom or not.
> I still haven't seen any examples that seem genuinely worthwhile. If
> some can be came up with, this becomes something I might be able to
> agree with:
Consider:
Unpacking new netbase...
Stoppiing portmapper: portmap.
Unpacking new ssh...
Stopping Secure Shell: ssh
Unpacking new this...
Unpacking new that...
Installing ssh...
Starting Secure Shell: ssh
Installing netbase...
Installing this...
Installing that...
. Consider trying to diagnose why users were complaining that ssh
wasn't working for a while, even though it seems to have fixed itself
now. Consider trying to work out how come portmap no longer seems to work,
or even be available.
> > So, how about something like:
> > Packages should briefly report the main tasks as they undertake
> may
Policy's about ensuring consistency amongst packages. "should" seems
appropriate here, just as it does for the manpage requirement.
> > them, in a similar manner to that used in init scripts, but
> > should avoid producing unnecessary or overly verbose output.
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
Reply to: