Re: RFC: allow output from maintainer scripts
Anthony Towns wrote:
> > 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.
Well I happen to agree with policy here.
> 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.
> 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.
All right. This is useful, you've convinced me.
If we modify policy to say this kind of thing should be done, I'd really
like to see it happen via some kind of mechanism that can easily let it
be stored in a log. I know this has been discussed in the past,
inconclusively but maybe it's time to revisit it.
> > > 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.
So what if the "main task" my postinst does is something utterly
trivial. "Setting up /usr/doc symlink.. done." There is a wording
problem with what you proposed.
--
see shy jo
Reply to: