On Tue 15 Sep 2009 21:18 +1000, James Rayner wrote: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 9:14 PM, James Rayner <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Dan McGee <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> I don't really know what to think here. I had looked at that messages > >> one for a long time and thought it was a decent idea, but never went > >> far enough to take it and run with it. > >> > >> @Loui- sure, but this is for extraordinary messages- a lot more > >> exclusive than ChangeLog-worthy stuff, and you have to explicitly > >> request to see that anyway. > >> > >> @Jeff- it isn't exactly straightforward to view an install script > >> beforehand, and the post_install business is a rather hacky reason for > >> needing an install script. > >> > >> -Dan > >> > > > > Dan's got the idea... > > > > pacman should not break someone's system without at least telling them > > first. So yes - this is intended for more extraordinary messages. > > > > The current ways of informing the user (homepage/forum news and > > post-install) are broken and non-simple: > > - both polling based > oh, and post-install is after the fact - when the system is broken, so > it's not a very good way of informing the user that their system "will > break" because it's already broken. > > Anyway, I'm all for a more generalised/ideal setup, but that's been > wanted for a while with no patches coming forward.
The user should be made aware that there is a ChangeLog, and they have a means of easily reading that before installation or upgrade. There's no need to bloat makepkg, PKGBUILDs, and pacman. You only need to add a little to pacman like this.
