From: Michael Tremer <michael.tremer@ipfire.org>
To: development@lists.ipfire.org
Subject: Re: Comments regarding the upgrade process
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 22:51:13 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1450824673.2928.25.camel@ipfire.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <op.x92hhtkhcahio0@honk.fritz.box>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1958 bytes --]
On Tue, 2015-12-22 at 23:45 +0100, Larsen wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 23:36:35 +0100, Michael Tremer
> <michael.tremer(a)ipfire.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am afraid that I must disappoint you on some of these points.
> > pakfire
> > in IPFire 2 is legacy code and I do not have the time to add new
> > features. It is just maintained as it is and bugs are fixed.
> >
> > We have a rewrite of this in IPFire 3 already.
>
> So, there will be more verbose output?
Yes some. It will look like this:
http://pakfire.ipfire.org/packages/release/bash/0-4.3-11.ip3/logs/bui
ld.x86_64.1.log
AT the beginning of the log there is just a quick overview about the
package being built. Then follows a transaction summary of pakfire
which lists which packages will be installed/update/removed and after
that a progress bar what step of the transaction is currently taking
place.
Then there is a build of the bash package which is part of the build
system and not pakfire as a package manager.
Basically pakfire installs a temporary chroot environment with all the
build dependencies, compiled the package and finally destroys the whole
build environment again.
> > > PAKFIRE UPGR: We are going to install all packages listed
> > > above.
> > > PAKFIRE INFO: Is this okay? [y/N]
> > >
> > > --> Shouldn't the default be Yes?
> >
> > Why?
>
> Cause you would normally want to install the new packages? And
> maybe
> IPFire relies on the new versions? (I don't know how this is supposed
> to
> work)
You are not asked if you want to install the core update. That will
always happen. This is just for the add-on packages. Of course you
would want to install them indeed.
I basically thought that "n" is the safe option here and this is
usually the default. How do other package managers do this? I would
like this to be equal for better user experience. Once you are used to
these things... you know?
>
>
> Lars
-Michael
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-22 22:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-22 18:16 Lars Schuhmacher
2015-12-22 22:36 ` Michael Tremer
2015-12-22 22:45 ` Larsen
2015-12-22 22:51 ` Michael Tremer [this message]
2015-12-22 23:25 ` Larsen
2015-12-23 0:35 ` R. W. Rodolico
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1450824673.2928.25.camel@ipfire.org \
--to=michael.tremer@ipfire.org \
--cc=development@lists.ipfire.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox