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