[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Questioning Pirut



On Sun, 2006-02-19 at 10:16 -0500, Willem Riede wrote:
> On 02/19/2006 09:29:00 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > When you mention bugs, I would immediately like to see them followed bynice  
> > informative bug reports. When you mention UI issues, mockups wouldbe great  
> > contributions to help in the design of a better UI and whilehanging out on  
> > #fedora-devel you could always ping and talk to Jeremyand others over their  
> > plans for Pirut.  Perfectionism is the root of allevils.
> 
> Triggered by this thread, I just tried pirut for the first time, and while it  
> may lack polish, it certainly works. There's two observations that I'll be  
> happy to turn into bugzilla RFEs if so desired:
> 
> 1. the packages added (or in this case removed) apparently are not added to  
> yum.log - I wish they were;

Hrmm, I thought this was actually happening -- it's definitely intended
to be.  Looking, I see I forgot the call in both system-install-packages
and pirut although I put it in pup.  Added it to CVS and it'll be in the
next build

> 2. I wish the "details" that you've got 15 seconds to look at contain a list  
> of the packages that are actually going to be added / removed, not just the  
> ones drawn in for dependencies - I removed "dial-up networking", since I'm on  
> cable modem I figured I don't need them, and then saw minicom being erased,  
> which I wanted to keep (but not for dial-up). Easily enough to revert with  
> yum, but I should have been able to avoid it.

This is something which I'm a bit open to discussion on -- I think that
definitely for the case of updates (pup), the deps are something that
you mostly want to accept and not have to actively accept.  

In the case of something like installing a single package, though, I can
see more active acceptance making sense.  The initial mockups had
"apply" being more of a view that showed you what actions were about to
occur and then requiring an active acceptance, more along the lines of
what system-config-packages used to show.  Adding back something like
that (although probably as a dialog rather than a top-level view) is
definitely something that could be done if it would be thought to make
things better.

Jeremy


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]