From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Tremer To: development@lists.ipfire.org Subject: Re: Comments regarding the upgrade process Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 22:51:13 +0000 Message-ID: <1450824673.2928.25.camel@ipfire.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1805829058181784135==" List-Id: --===============1805829058181784135== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Tue, 2015-12-22 at 23:45 +0100, Larsen wrote: > On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 23:36:35 +0100, Michael Tremer   > 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 --===============1805829058181784135== Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" MIME-Version: 1.0 LS0tLS1CRUdJTiBQR1AgU0lHTkFUVVJFLS0tLS0KVmVyc2lvbjogR251UEcgdjEKCmlRSWNCQUFC Q2dBR0JRSldlZFBpQUFvSkVJQjU4UDl2a0FrSFhCUVFBSkFNMGN3VkN3ZnVFUm5oelpDdVJTbFEK QW5hSXM4UUJkcnFoZXRLVDZad2RSREN6Q2UzRElMd3FsRVprZGFFeTA0NytTUFQ5d2UxNVdRUUhL Vm1BNUhrUAp1SW5Yb3VZb3JLZjg1SzNDeGdDVjdOSTExeWVxbFpGcVFTZlJaQ2lJb0xESGpuekJn bGRQSlVzT2lHcVRjWVR3CnFVdHRWZWpEV1lJNXJOTlF2aEU5NmdBK0IzUFpRSXFlTDJhaHZyZTQ3 R1VmWFRrdGxZNk5lOERvaHpzUCt2VHcKdjRya1N1K0RMSzBEWThFVzBjYXhhM2lNUmVHcC92STlJ WFlTVDRmUzQ5eHVTS0hRRmtDL29CUURaMVdySEZFYQpiTTNOTDAydU1kdUZPN0syUmxIVENxVlor STRHeWhNbndFNU5nYnVrMXcvYlB5VHMwSlJHZlRwT04wY3k2cVBNCkE0UThSeFRrdHBJL1R3TWIr a2dCNTgxcm9PZTMzQkpXUmFwZ0NuUXRYOWh5T3B5KzFwbFBQa3hPZnBkSUd5WW4KaU9HQXNYNXZF NFRTK2dlRUhFajFnU0RKTUwydFlqU29JYk0vblBDRkFJV0IwUkJNbDJIaytzcHJ5aHNraTc2Vgo0 b241RjR4VHVRZHNlTEovZzB5NUhWZTlWSnpYZjlNOHFpNVQwSmM3MWswdnhSbVdyaDczbGkrQmNh ZVNhR1REClIvYllSSjg5OTNheHpDU0IrQkN6a2drajBMWHBXVVoweHZSakNYTVVWTU5VZDJ6Zk1R TGlzaEtWS0piUFRhVS8KNFhGaXVXREkvQ1ZHN2ZyOU0vV1BvRitPSTg4TlRhZFhzc3FGemVQanpL d09hRVQrMlNPMXo2Z3RXL1Z1d1l1RwpQa2VsUGprdkh5ZXQ5T0VFZWlvQQo9R3BuYQotLS0tLUVO RCBQR1AgU0lHTkFUVVJFLS0tLS0K --===============1805829058181784135==--