On Sat, Jun 08, 2019 at 12:11:57PM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I want to get some stakeholder input on our pkg-message files. I think > we need to have a clear policy about what does and doesn't belong in > them, and I'd like to get your input. > > pkg-message is shown to every user on every install. UPDATING is only > shown when users run `pkg updating` *and* /usr/ports/UPDATING exists. > I suspect that only a small proportion of users do that.
Well, for folks who install pre-built packages, probably. For those of us who -- for at least some systems -- build from ports locally, I'm less confident: I check it for relevant entries that have been added since last time I updated installed ports on my laptop or local build machine (which is daily) or my work desktop (which is weekly). Mind, its utility falls a bit short of the mark: ref. https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227193 > pkg-message needs to contain only highly relevant information. Many, > many ports have messages with irrelevant information that users are > likely to get message fatigue and ignore them entirely. I don't want > to pick on Joe Barbish, because his work is absolutely fantastic, but > dns/dns2blackhole/pkg-message is an example of a giant message that > tells users to do the same thing they always do for any port: > ######################################################################## > > dns2blackhole > > Malware Prevention through Domain Blocking (Black Hole) > > Issue "man dns2blackhole" For configuration and usage information > > ######################################################################## > > We now have the ability to specify messages that appear on initial > install, or on upgrades from/to specific version. So here is what I > propose as policy: > > >>> > pkg-message must contain only information that is vital to setup and > operation, and that is unique to the port in question. Setup > information should only be shown on initial install, and upgrade > instructions should be shown only when upgrading to the relevant > version. All committers have blanket approval to constrain existing > messages to install/upgrade ranges using the UCL format > specifications. Message pruning falls under the blanket approval as > well, but committers are encouraged to get maintainer input > beforehand. > <<< > > What are your thoughts? > .... No objections, and de-cluttering seems like a pretty good idea. (At least you didn't insert a requirement that any such messages must "spark joy." :-) ) Peace, david -- David H. Wolfskill [email protected] "...including Mars (of which the Moon is a part)...." -- Donald J. Trump See http://www.catwhisker.org/~david/publickey.gpg for my public key.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
