On Apr 13, 2011, at 6:43 PM, Alexander Hansen wrote: > On 4/5/11 8:34 AM, Max Horn wrote: >> Hi there, >> >> we have a bunch of "obsolete" packages, which typically only still exist to >> smoothly and automatically transit users to their successor packages. >> Typically, such packages depend on fink-obsolete-packages, which marks them >> as obsolete. >> >> However, I just realized that end users may not be fully aware of this >> "obsoleteness" and what it exactly means in many cases. This is made worse >> by the fact that obsolete packages very often have not very helpful >> descriptions. Consider a few examples: >> >> alpine 2.00-108 Old version of a text-based >> email client >> pine 4.64-1100 Old version of a text-based >> email client >> pine-ssl 4.64-1100 Old version of a text-based >> email client >> >> -> the user is not told that "alpine" and "pine" do not actually contain >> pine anymore, but rather are just dummies and that re-alpine is the real >> package that's been installed silently. Yes, "fink info alpine" etc. will >> tell the truth, but not everybody will check there. >> >> Another example: >> gftp-ssl 2.0.19-1 Obsolete, gftp is now unified >> The term "unified" means nothing to a user. >> >> And so on. I would like to propose that all obsolete packages receive a >> common, uniform description, namely: >> >> "OBSOLETE use FOO instead" >> or maybe better >> "OBSOLETE use package 'FOO' instead" >> >> or something like that. Likewise, the DescDetail could be unified. Of course >> this change would have to go along with a revision increment. We may want to >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> Cheers, >> Max > > I found one issue when I was trying to make a package obsolete: > > $ fink dumpinfo -fdescription treeline > Information about 10150 packages read in 1 seconds. > description: OBSOLETE use 'treeline-x11' package instead > > $ fink validate > /sw32/fink/dists/unstable/main/finkinfo/utils/treeline-1.2.4-3.info > Validating package file > /sw32/fink/dists/unstable/main/finkinfo/utils/treeline-1.2.4-3.info... > Warning: Description contains package name. (treeline-1.2.4-3.info) > > This is fatal in maintainer mode.
This is an annoying limitation and I wonder if it should be removed from the validator. While they aren't common, I can think of a number of reasons to have the package name incorporated into the Description, not just for obsolete packages. For example, when I made the 'lzma' package I wanted to use the Description 'LZMA file compressor', which is what it is. I couldn't think of a reasonable Description that didn't have the string 'lzma' in it so I used 'L Z M A file compressor' to trick the validator even though it was horribly kludgy. Fortunately, that package is now obsolete and its Description is 'OBSOLETE Use xz instead'. :) I do like Max's suggestion to use "OBSOLETE use package 'FOO' instead" and I'll probably change it for the next version. I have several obsolete packages so I'll have to audit them all. Daniel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List archive: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel Subscription management: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
