Re: apt-get readability
Hello David,
Thank you for the reply and the explanation. ^.^
Here are my thoughts on some of your points:
op 23-02-14 19:03, David Kalnischkies schreef:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 09:00:05PM +0100, Kuro Maii wrote:
>> If a yum-like output can be implemented I would be very happy even if it
>> would be with an extra commandline option.
>>
>> I would also like to know other peoples opinion to the matter as I find
>> the default output of apt-get to be very unreadable.
> Well, it depends all on your personal preference I guess.
> In this small example yum has a certain appeal, but have you tried it
> with the antology of a dist-upgrade? The output of apt changing ~1000 of
> packages in the same run is already quiet large, the same in yum style
> would… huge.
> The "appeal" is mostly that it has more whitespace which is presumbly
> friendlier on the eye in short examples, but in big operations…
>
> Personally I am also not sure what the point of displaying architecture
> by default is. It's not like anyone would care (expect developers maybe)
> in the general case. Most people don't even know what a hell an
> architecture is… (amd64? I have an Intel processor…). We display it then
> its needed. I made this happen, so I am probably horribly biased, but I
> think its better this way.
I do agree on this part, the showing of the architecture should, for
one, go into a verbose option. ( also amd64 is indeed obscure in my
opinion, why not 64bit.... )
And I can also see your point of yum generating a very lengthy list when
one would be running a dist-upgrade or similarly a long overdue update.
I am not saying yum is the way to go I can certainly see ways to improve
yum, one of them I just mentioned.
> Versions… well, I am usually not caring for it either. We have an option
> for that though… (which also adds a lot of whitespace and displays the
> more interesting from-to-relation in upgrades)
Also one I would like to see in a verbosity option ( on yums and of
things ). I didn't know apt had an option for that. What would that
option be? I would like to test it and see if I like it.
> Repository has a certain appeal, but mostly for those with lots of
> repositories. Not so if you don't like on a proper debian system…
I like to see the repository when non default or when more then one
repository would be the source of the packages to be installed, or even
with another verbosity option. ( I personally use some hardware and
software that is not in the default set of the ubuntu repositories, so
in my case I would like to see it. )
> Showing download size by default seems also not that useful to me
> (especially as I thought it would be install size first…).
It isn't necessarily usefull, it is to me more of an indication as to
how long the download might take. I rather only see the total and have
an option to show me a per package install size.
> And then there is the underlying difference: apt needs to run dpkg and
> give it a proper voice as it can ask questions. rpm on the otherhand
> can't, so yum can get away with not showing verbose output at all.
Personally I find yum overly verbose at a couple of points but I think
that I already drove that home. At the same time I don't think I
understand what you are saying here....
>
> All in all, as I said: Personal preference.
> apt-get output could certainly be better, but I am not convienced that
> yum should be taken as an example for "better"…
>
>
> It isn't rally hard to write your own frontend though, so if you feel
> like wanting exactly this output, you could make it happen…
As you might have noticed I would not like to have yum exact output
style ( hence I requested for yum"-like" ). It is a nice suggestion to
make my own frontend, can you suggest some starting points and/or links,
tips and the like for me to start this project?
>
>
> Best regards
>
> David Kalnischkies
Also it seems to me you have missed that yum has given the user a count
of the packages that are to be installed/updated and that it gives a
numbered listing of the download progress as well as the installation so
the user has an indication of where we are in the progress, which is
nice to know when we are dealing with more packages ( than screen height ).
A minor point: Now I have to add that it is not visible that the
download is multi-threaded and the downloaded items are listed when
received. thus giving a more true progress of downloads done.
Please let me know what you think and what tips you might have for my
own frondend, as I have no clue on where to start or even look.
Kind greetings,
Kuro Maii
Reply to: