Re: gnome-apt status wrt UI document
On Sun, 6 Dec 1998, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > 5.1 Obsolete sources
> >
> > Sounds like an apt-pkg issue.
>
> What is an obsolete source?
>
I think I meant obsolete package. :-) See UI design, section 5.1.
> This is that funny auto thing right? That is in there but needs a little
> touching up.
>
OK, as soon as it's ready for prime time I can add support for it.
> You can show all available versions (VerIterator from a package) but you
> can't select which version to install. Doing so is pretty easy I can add
> it.
>
I'm already confused with only the two versions, so this is going to
complicate things. How will this be shown in the tree view? Which version
is selected if you click the upgrade check box?
> > - The only action from the UI design is "complete run," apt-pkg does
> > not support only upgrading/installing/removing really.
>
> These seperately are all evil :>
>
I tend to agree that this is not really a good feature to have. I think
the UI design should be changed on this.
> > - I have added Update to the actions menu; I've also added the option
> > to "Mark upgrades" (apt-get upgrade) and "Smart Mark Upgrades"
> > (apt-get dist-upgrade). These just mark packages, then you can
> > adjust things to your liking and choose Complete Run to actually
> > perform the installs/removals.
>
> You might want to change the names of these. If the usere merrily goes
> along and makes selections these options can resolve their problems.
>
Any suggestions for good names? I couldn't think of anything good, ergo
the names are bad. :-)
BTW, is it safe to call pkgAllUpgrade and pkgDistUpgrade if the user has
broken stuff? Or do I need to check for broken packages first and offer to
pkgFixBroken?
> > There are no Auto or Source columns due to lack of apt-pkg support.
> > They can be added later.
>
> Which are these supposed to do?
>
Auto just displays the Auto flag's state, and I guess lets you toggle it.
Source is the source the package came from I guess. I think we discussed
it earlier and you said it wasn't very feasible.
Anyway, the UI design should be changed if it isn't going to be
implemented in apt-pkg.
> The very original scheme was to have apt never prompt. It is annoying.
> Very annoying. I can't recall if the UI spec said this, but showing
> couners in a status line for the number of packages to
> install/remove/upgrade as well as marking broken packages in red is a
> really good way to handle this.
>
> Instead of bringing up a dialog that says 'Oops, you can't do this, I"m
> going to install Foo, bar and moo' (sounds like dselect, doesn't it?)
> simply have installing a package make sure it is nonbroken automatically.
> Let the user sort out side effects because in general there won't be any.
>
> Maybe make a menu option to install without smarts.
>
> Your preview can be seen by expanding the dep list for the package and
> looking at broken deps (highlight these in red), when you hit I all the
> red lines become black lines and the state of those packges change.
>
I think this is nice. I agree with you that the UI design should be
changed. (However if I can in fact get a preview, making it configurable
is only a few lines of code so I guess I may as well do it both ways.)
> MarkInstall has a very limited scope in that regard, it is the
> ProblemResolver that can do huge expansive things.
>
OK, this is what I was worried about - changes being made all over the
tree that the user wouldn't be able to find again. The Auto flag helps
here of course.
Earlier when I asked about ProblemResolver I was wondering whether to run
it when toggling Install/Upgrade on a package. So in light of this I guess
I should not. Should I ever run it? What is the difference between it and
pkgFixBroken?
> You need to integrate with the Mirror list as well somehow :>
>
Oh fun. What's the Mirror list?
> There have been some minor tweaks in the newest cvs, you will need to make
> a media change dialog and look at apt-get's installer code for some other
> issues.
>
I'm all over the media change dialog, did it Friday I think. I didn't see
the apt-get changes though so I will cvs diff. (the dangers of
cut-and-paste begin to emerge...)
Havoc
Reply to: