On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 10:56:50AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: > Anthony Towns wrote: > > The first paragraph of that section states: > > ``The package installation scripts should avoid producing output > > which it (sic) is unnecessary for the user to see and should rely > > on `dpkg' to stave off boredom on the part of a user installing > > many packages. [...]'' > > The fourth paragraph continues: > > ``If a package has a vitally important piece of information to pass to > > the user [...] it should display this in the `postinst' script and > > prompt the user to hit return to acknowledge the message.'' > Well I'd never really read those two paragraphs side by side I must > confess.
Likewise.
> > 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.
> > To me, those sorts of outputs seem useful and helpful
> Some of them, a lot are massively useless debug output.
Yeah, sure. It's the some that I'm interested in though. :)
So, how about something like:
Packages should briefly report the main tasks as they undertake
them, in a similar manner to that used in init scripts, but
should avoid producing unnecessary or overly verbose output.
If a package has a vitally important piece of information to pass to
the user [...same paragraph, moved up a bit]
Packages should try to minimize the amount of prompting [...]
?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <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
pgpgE8w8KGogI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
