Re: RFC: allow output from maintainer scripts
Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > > 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.
>
> Hmmm. "major" ? "significant" ?
"significant" sounds good to me.
> So is there anything wrong with just consistently using stderr for these
> notes?
It just seems wrong -- stderr is meant for errors after all. But maybe
I'm being needlessly pedantic.
> Messages should be formatted in a similar manner to those generated
> by the various init scripts. If an operation is expected to take
> some time, you may indicate this with something like:
>
> echo -n >&2 "Bytecompiling for emacs20"
> # ... code to byte compile ...
> echo >&2 "."
That's nice.
--
see shy jo
Reply to: