1 |
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> Therefore, we could use the opportunity to add some other features. |
4 |
> So far, this includes: |
5 |
> |
6 |
|
7 |
I don't have a solution for this in mind, but I do see a problem that |
8 |
could use a solution with our current approach to news in our stable |
9 |
and unstable branches. |
10 |
|
11 |
Using the current criteria we have for displaying news items it is |
12 |
very hard to prepare a news item that is displayed at an appropriate |
13 |
time for both stable and unstable users of a package. Either the |
14 |
unstable users don't get the news item at all, or everybody gets it at |
15 |
the same time. Then stable users end up getting confused and |
16 |
eventually forgetting about the notice, only to be hit with the update |
17 |
after a significant time lag (it could be a year or more in some |
18 |
cases) without any advance news. |
19 |
|
20 |
One way to do this (and I'm certainly open to others) is a |
21 |
Display-If-Installable header which takes a keyword string and an atom |
22 |
(typically a specific PV). The package manager would determine if a |
23 |
package with that keyword string and PV would be accepted or not based |
24 |
on the user's configuration, and if so display the news. So, if the |
25 |
string "~amd64 ~x86", =www-client/apache-2.4.19 were passed, users |
26 |
running ~arch would generally get the message, as would a user running |
27 |
stable but with <www-client/apache-2.5 in their package.keywords, but |
28 |
not a user running stable with <www-client/apache-2.4.19 in their |
29 |
package.keywords. If a user already was running |
30 |
www-client/apache-2.4.21 the news would not display since the package |
31 |
manager wouldn't attempt to install 2.4.19 if it showed up in the tree |
32 |
(I'm open to argument as to whether it should show up if 2.4.19 is |
33 |
already installed as there are pros and cons here). Note that this is |
34 |
all hypothetical and the news should be triggered even if 2.4.19 isn't |
35 |
in the tree yet, or if it is in the tree with a different set of |
36 |
keywords. |
37 |
|
38 |
Now, this would still potentially require putting the same news item |
39 |
into the tree multiple times to trigger it for the unstable/stable |
40 |
users, but the key would be that the right users get the message when |
41 |
this happens. Since the details of the news and what PV it applies to |
42 |
might change between unstable/stable this is probably appropriate |
43 |
anyway. Likewise if three archs are going stable now and two more a |
44 |
year from now the news could be re-triggered just for those archs. |
45 |
|
46 |
The main downside to this I see is complexity - you can't just set up |
47 |
one news item and have it do the right thing. The main advantage I |
48 |
see to this is correctness - it handles both the case where keywords |
49 |
are set in make.conf and package.keywords, because it provides enough |
50 |
of a hint to the package manager about what is about to be introduced |
51 |
into the tree. |
52 |
|
53 |
There could easily be a better solution for this. However, I think it |
54 |
is a problem worth solving. |
55 |
|
56 |
-- |
57 |
Rich |