From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "R. W. Rodolico" To: development@lists.ipfire.org Subject: Re: Comments regarding the upgrade process Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 18:35:40 -0600 Message-ID: <5679EC5C.5060902@dailydata.net> In-Reply-To: <1450824673.2928.25.camel@ipfire.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4755141858351415090==" List-Id: --===============4755141858351415090== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Other package managers (Debian for one, but there are others I can't think of right now), have Yes set as the default EXCEPT when bringing in packages which require updates to other packages, ie if package A has a dependency on package B in the new version, but not the previous, then you must explicitly tell it to install package A. However, if package A has a pre-existing dependency on package B, then both A and B are defaulted to being updated. However, my two cents are for minor things like this, forget it and work on on IPFire 3. We can live with annoyances in 2 if it ends up with more time being spent on 3. Rod On 12/22/2015 04:51 PM, Michael Tremer wrote: > 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 > - -- Rod Rodolico Daily Data, Inc. POB 140465 Dallas TX 75214-0465 214.827.2170 http://www.dailydata.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlZ57FwACgkQuVY3UpYMlTS9uQCeOjvUk7yaEwUj3A8yzetbvoo+ Pr0An2JaRaiEGlA/B0Btroy2x9gYkw3H =9b1c -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --===============4755141858351415090==--