1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> [Mageia-dev] RFC: task-obsolete and README.*.urpmi enhancement
</TITLE>
<LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
<LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20RFC%3A%20task-obsolete%20and%20README.%2A.urpmi%20enhancement&In-Reply-To=%3C4F047C6B.60205%40gmail.com%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="010949.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="010952.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[Mageia-dev] RFC: task-obsolete and README.*.urpmi enhancement</H1>
<B>Guillaume Rousse</B>
<A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20RFC%3A%20task-obsolete%20and%20README.%2A.urpmi%20enhancement&In-Reply-To=%3C4F047C6B.60205%40gmail.com%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] RFC: task-obsolete and README.*.urpmi enhancement">guillomovitch at gmail.com
</A><BR>
<I>Wed Jan 4 17:20:59 CET 2012</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="010949.html">[Mageia-dev] RFC: task-obsolete and README.*.urpmi enhancement
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="010952.html">[Mageia-dev] RFC: task-obsolete and README.*.urpmi enhancement
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#10950">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#10950">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#10950">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#10950">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>Le 04/01/2012 16:53, Luc Menut a écrit :
><i> Hello,
</I>><i>
</I>><i> We have recently discussed here about task-obsolete.
</I>><i> <A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/mageia-dev@mageia.org/msg09762.html">http://www.mail-archive.com/mageia-dev@mageia.org/msg09762.html</A>
</I>><i> <A HREF="https://bugs.mageia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3786">https://bugs.mageia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3786</A>
</I>><i>
</I>><i> I like the idea.
</I>><i> But I think that we need to inform the user about the package(s) that we
</I>><i> will obsolete and remove on his system (and why: security, ..).
</I>><i> So I tried to use README.*.urpmi to do this.
</I>><i> But I found that currently, urpmi and rpmdrake don't handle very well
</I>><i> optional README.*.urpmi (%ghost); they always display information's
</I>><i> screen, even if the file doesn't exist.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> So, I propose here 2 enhancements for README.*.urpmi (POC patch for
</I>><i> urpm/install.pm, and task-obsolete.spec in attachment):
</I>><i>
</I>><i> 1) add support for optional README.*.urpmi (%ghost in spec):
</I>><i> This will allow to build this README.*.urpmi at install time in %pre,
</I>><i> %post or %trigger only when it's necessary.
</I>That will create files on the system unknown from rpm database, and
unknown from urpmi too.
><i> One use case from the recent past in my mind:
</I>><i> we have no way to inform users that still use nspluginwrapper + i586
</I>><i> flashplayer on x86_64 (and only them), that this is now deprecated and
</I>><i> they should replace the i586 by the x86_64 flashplayer,
</I>><i> <A HREF="https://bugs.mageia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2146#c22">https://bugs.mageia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2146#c22</A>
</I>><i> <A HREF="https://bugs.mageia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2146#c25">https://bugs.mageia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2146#c25</A>
</I>><i>
</I>><i> 2) handle README.*.(obsolete|deprecated).urpmi
</I>><i> In order to display informations about the deprecated or obsoleted
</I>><i> package(s), I suggest to handle 2 new kinds of README.*.urpmi:
</I>><i> - README."nameObsoletedPackage".obsolete.urpmi to inform about the
</I>><i> package we obsolete by task-obsolete
</I>><i> e.g. java-1.6.0-sun*, <A HREF="https://bugs.mageia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3101">https://bugs.mageia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3101</A>
</I>><i>
</I>><i> - README."nameDeprecatedPackage".deprecated.urpmi to inform about
</I>><i> package that we considere as deprecated, but we have no reason (no
</I>><i> vulnerability, security, ...) to force uninstallation (task-deprecated?).
</I>><i>
</I>><i> What do you think ?
</I>Rather than focusing on shiny automatic display mechanisms, I'd rather
work on information content.
We currently have a ugly mix of README.mdk (4), README.mdv (5),
README.urpmi (46), README.update.urpmi (1), eventually others, without
any clue about their internal consistency. The last one I saw
(roundcubemail) had quite a bunch of informations about package upgrade,
but nothing about post-installation, for instance. Some of them use very
personal tone (Hello, this is Oden, your favorite apache manager,
advising you to visit my own web site to get additional modules,
cheers), while other are purely technical instructions (run mysql with
this file to create the database).
We also have some packages (such as postfix) advising users to read this
file in their description:
PLEASE READ THE %{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}/README.MDK FILE.
So, today we have heterogeneous information cluttered in a gazillion
different microfiles, a subset of them being automatically displayed
during installation (ruining urpmi mass update output).
Here are a few proposal of mines to make the situation better:
- use a unique file name, enforced by convention, rather than references
in package description, the same way Debian does with README.debian
- display its content only in graphical context: command-line users
usually know about this kind of convention to get information themselves
- use standardised file content and markup to allow rpmdrake and other
graphical tools to achieve the same kind of selection than file
splitting today
- define some kind of policy of what should be there, and what should
not, to achieve minimal consistency
--
BOFH excuse #187:
Reformatting Page. Wait...
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="010949.html">[Mageia-dev] RFC: task-obsolete and README.*.urpmi enhancement
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="010952.html">[Mageia-dev] RFC: task-obsolete and README.*.urpmi enhancement
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#10950">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#10950">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#10950">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#10950">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<hr>
<a href="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">More information about the Mageia-dev
mailing list</a><br>
</body></html>
|
