On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 16:08:03 +1000 Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 21/12/10 15:53, Xyne wrote:
On 2010-12-21 12:14 +0800 (51:2) Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 13:22 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
My view is that there is no need for informational post_install or post_update messages (and I find those annoying in general...). Especially given this obviously a svn snapshot for a branch that has seen no release yet. I work on the assumption that the users of Arch are not stupid[*] and know what they are installing on their systems. They would have gone out of their way not to just install the ardour package from the repos for a reason.
[*] well, lets just say I do to make this point... :P
Allan
Well from the POV of ardour's developers, ardour3 isn't even alpha or pre-alpha yet, and this PKGBUILD just encourages those mythical 'stupid users' to try out something which isn't for general users yet.
The problem here is that problems will be brought to them (the ardour devs) rather than to this list or the comments on the AUR package. If a post_install message alleviates that problem it's all good, I think.
If a simple message is able to address the concerns expressed by the upstream developer and encourage users to contribute to the project then we should include it. It shows respect and costs nothing.
How about a comment in the PKGBUILD then? Everybody reads the PKGBUILD before blindly running makepkg, right...
Too many people ignore post_install/upgrade messages as it is because of all the "useless" information in them. I think there usage should be limited to absolutely critical information.
Allan
many people ignore those messages? that's silly. the solution for preventing users ignoring reading warnings is not removing the warnings. anyway, if you make it a warning - even if they ignore it - they will *also* see it when they read the pkgbuild source. PS: didn't you just say "I work on the assumption that the users of Arch are not stupid" ? Dieter