Am 27.11.2013 12:58, schrieb Tom Gundersen:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Sébastien Luttringer firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On 27/11/2013 11:35, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 27.11.2013 11:29, schrieb Allan McRae:
Please don't do this... 11 line output in post_install. If you REALLY need this, use a single line pointing to the wiki page.
Usage instructions generally don't belong into install/upgrade messages. In the best case, there is no message at all.
In this case, the install message contains basic systemctl commands and networking tips, none of this is specific to docker or urgent enough to be printed during pacman.
This package has been pushed to svn too quicly. A discussion has been started in aur-general and I stated that I'll managing addition.
After a quick talk with Allan, I sent a mail to Daniel, to see if we can use the name docker for the new package instead of docker-io or lxc-docker. Let time to Daniel to answer.
On the technical standpoint, this package needs refactoring, maybe build the binary from the source and not use the binary provided by dotcloud/docker inc. This needs more work to be done.
This makes sense to me. It may be worth noting that the 'old' docker is installed by roughly 1% of our users, but according to their website is meant for use with GNOME2 and KDE3, which we don't even ship any more. I'd say dropping or renaming it makes the most sense and let this new package take the name 'docker', as that's what people will be looking for.
the 'old' docker ist mainly used for windowmaker and not GNOME2 or KDE3. Beside that it's working very well even it wasn't updated for decades. Nevertheless I don't care what package name the 'old' docker have, so feel free to rename it to 'docker-tray' or something similar. But I don't see the case for moving or dropping it out of extra.
But how can we rename it without much hassle for the user? A provide line in the PKGBUILD isn't possible if the 'new' docker is called docker or am I wrong on this?