| 1 |
On 01/06/2013 05:36 PM, Michael Mol wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Jan 6, 2013 8:32 PM, "Zac Medico" <zmedico@g.o |
| 4 |
> <mailto:zmedico@g.o>> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> On 01/06/2013 01:04 AM, Ralph Sennhauser wrote: |
| 7 |
>> > On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 23:34:59 -0600 |
| 8 |
>> > Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o <mailto:dberkholz@g.o>> |
| 9 |
> wrote: |
| 10 |
>> > |
| 11 |
>> >> On 10:26 Sat 22 Dec , Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 12 |
>> >>> Hello |
| 13 |
>> >>> |
| 14 |
>> >>> After seeing: |
| 15 |
>> >>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=440214 |
| 16 |
>> >>> |
| 17 |
>> >>> Looking to a lot of its blockers shows that we are using "elog" |
| 18 |
>> >>> messages for informing people about configuration (like pointing |
| 19 |
>> >>> people to external links to get proper way of configuring things, |
| 20 |
>> >>> tell them to add to some system groups...). I thought that maybe |
| 21 |
>> >>> this kind of information could be simply included in a canonical |
| 22 |
>> >>> file under /usr/share/doc/ package dir called, for example, |
| 23 |
>> >>> CONFIGURATION or SETUP. We would them point people (now with a news |
| 24 |
>> >>> item, for the long term provably a note to handbook to newcomers |
| 25 |
>> >>> would be nice) to that file to configure their setups. The main |
| 26 |
>> >>> advantages I see: |
| 27 |
>> >>> - We will flood less summary.log ;) |
| 28 |
>> >>> - The information to configure the package is always present while |
| 29 |
>> >>> package is installed, now, if we remove merge produced logs, people |
| 30 |
>> >>> will need to reemerge the package or read directly the ebuild |
| 31 |
>> >>> |
| 32 |
>> >>> What do you think? |
| 33 |
>> >> |
| 34 |
>> >> Bikeshedding ... would go with README.gentoo, because people are |
| 35 |
>> >> already used to looking for README files. Every time we can eliminate |
| 36 |
>> >> Gentoo-specific weirdness, we should. |
| 37 |
>> >> |
| 38 |
>> > |
| 39 |
>> > See the documentation for README.Debian[1], most importantly the |
| 40 |
>> > example. ;) |
| 41 |
>> > |
| 42 |
>> > I'd say we should handle it the same as Debian does. |
| 43 |
>> |
| 44 |
>> README.gentoo sounds good to me. |
| 45 |
>> |
| 46 |
>> > What could we possibly gain from doing it differently? |
| 47 |
>> |
| 48 |
>> Does Debian have a postinst message, like the proposed eclass would |
| 49 |
>> generate? Do you agree that a postinst message is desirable feature? |
| 50 |
>> |
| 51 |
>> > [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/dother.en.html#readme |
| 52 |
>> > |
| 53 |
>> -- |
| 54 |
>> Thanks, |
| 55 |
>> Zac |
| 56 |
>> |
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
> If we had README.gentoo, I'd love it if Portage alerted me as those |
| 59 |
> files changed. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
Even if it's just whitespace or formatting changes? Maybe it's better to |
| 62 |
let the ebuild do version comparisons and decide whether to generate a |
| 63 |
message based on that. |
| 64 |
-- |
| 65 |
Thanks, |
| 66 |
Zac |
Archives