[pacman-dev] No .install messages standard yet? - Pacman-dev - lists.archlinux.org

newer
[pacman-dev] vercmp / force update

[pacman-dev] No .install messages standard yet?

older
[pacman-dev] CVS update of...

Alessio 'mOLOk' Bolognino

4 Mar 2007 4 Mar '07

9:22 p.m.

I think you should define a standard for the .install message to avoid the actual anarchy and proliferation of very different styles. Just my 2c, -- Alessio 'mOLOk' Bolognino Arch Linux Trusted User http://www.archlinux.org

Show replies by date

kfs1＠online.no

4 Mar 4 Mar

9:38 p.m.

On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 22:22:06 +0100, Alessio 'mOLOk' Bolognino wrote:

I think you should define a standard for the .install message to avoid the actual anarchy and proliferation of very different styles. Just my 2c,

hmm i don't know about this since sometimes different messages requires different wrappings..? but also it would be nice to have a generic wrapping... a way to solve this is to force use of a user-defined color when informational messages appear which would allow the author to use DRAMATIC text when !!! SOMETHING !!! _VERY_ important needs to be read but still have some kind of genericness to it :) also an additional feature which would be practical to have is one which shows the user the last informational messages (for example pacman -i or pacman -i=10). but maybe you think it's featuritis because it's already in the log if you just bother to look/know to look. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Aaron Griffin

5 Mar 5 Mar

4:13 a.m.

On 3/4/07, kfs1@online.no wrote:

On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 22:22:06 +0100, Alessio 'mOLOk' Bolognino wrote:

...
I think you should define a standard for the .install message to avoid the actual anarchy and proliferation of very different styles. Just my 2c,

hmm i don't know about this since sometimes different messages requires different wrappings..? but also it would be nice to have a generic wrapping...

Because install files are actually executed by bash, we should/could standardize this by making some bash functions (similar to those in /etc/rc.d/functions). This would make it much easier to change in the long run. If anyone has any propositions, please post them here.

Dan McGee

4:18 a.m.

On 3/4/07, Aaron Griffin wrote:

On 3/4/07, kfs1@online.no wrote:

...
On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 22:22:06 +0100, Alessio 'mOLOk' Bolognino wrote:

...
I think you should define a standard for the .install message to avoid the actual anarchy and proliferation of very different styles. Just my 2c,

hmm i don't know about this since sometimes different messages requires different wrappings..? but also it would be nice to have a generic wrapping...

Because install files are actually executed by bash, we should/could standardize this by making some bash functions (similar to those in /etc/rc.d/functions). This would make it much easier to change in the long run.

If anyone has any propositions, please post them here.

I had a thought that a stopgap solution would be to put some 'default' echo lines in PKGBUILD.proto. This would encourage use of consistent messages with new packages at the very least. On a side note, I think adding a message=('whatever') option to makepkg/pacman is a good idea, it is a very old FR in Flyspray that didn't make it into 3.0 but should be in 3.1. -Dan

Roman Kyrylych

8:59 a.m.

2007/3/5, Dan McGee :

On 3/4/07, Aaron Griffin wrote:

...
On 3/4/07, kfs1@online.no wrote:

...
On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 22:22:06 +0100, Alessio 'mOLOk' Bolognino wrote:

...
I think you should define a standard for the .install message to avoid the actual anarchy and proliferation of very different styles. Just my 2c,

hmm i don't know about this since sometimes different messages requires different wrappings..? but also it would be nice to have a generic wrapping...

Because install files are actually executed by bash, we should/could standardize this by making some bash functions (similar to those in /etc/rc.d/functions). This would make it much easier to change in the long run.

If anyone has any propositions, please post them here.

I had a thought that a stopgap solution would be to put some 'default' echo lines in PKGBUILD.proto. This would encourage use of consistent messages with new packages at the very least.

On a side note, I think adding a message=('whatever') option to makepkg/pacman is a good idea, it is a very old FR in Flyspray that didn't make it into 3.0 but should be in 3.1.

See also this thread: http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2006-May/000341.html Example: http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2006-July/000401.html The patch provided there is already merged. If I understand this correctly - this is better way to catch install messages by GUI frontends. Of course this functionality should be wrapped with some nice functions. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)

6323

Age (days ago)

6324

Last active (days ago)

Download

4 comments

5 participants

tags

participants (5)

Aaron Griffin
Alessio 'mOLOk' Bolognino
Dan McGee
kfs1＠online.no
Roman Kyrylych