Pierre-Yves Chibon <pingou-E11Oz7VxvVOXCRStZZN3OA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 16:57 -0400, Allen S. Rout wrote: >> >> I have the opinion that the current manner of failing doesn't >> communicate what's going on very well. Would you consider documenting >> this requirement in the usage message, or even failing with an >> informative message? > > As in print the error message in the console rather than in the build > file ? Or do you have something else in mind ? Well, the error message is something along the lines of "Blank URL field". This doesn't lead me to assume "I should specify a repo, for this file that I have locally". On the one hand, for the -source case, you could specify a file:/// URL (and source0) if the user doesn't give one. If you don't like that, you could detect "Oh, they set a source but no repo", and give a diagnostic like "Must set a repo; please use one of --[... yadda yadda " >> I also think that there are other sources of packages than the various >> repos. It seems incorrect to me to insist that we name one. > > For this I had few ideas but I do not know how far I went with them: > - One idea was to be able to add repositories on the ~/.R2spec. > Now that I am thinking about it, I guess something like: > [repository] > bioc = http://bioconductor.org > cran = http://cran.r-project.org > mine = http://pingoured.fr > where one could then call R2spec/R2rpm with --repo=mine or --repo=bioc > or something like this. > > - Another idea might be to just specify the repository via an argument > --URL="http://pingoured.fr"; I understand your repo-centric perspective, but I would encourage you to let people build from files without forcing them to invent a repo. But this is an aesthetic call; If you permit an escape valve like --URL, and an error message to point to its use, then the usability concerns are well answered. > R2spec was designed to easily create spec file which would then be > reviewed and corrected by human. It has evolved to include rpm building > but I have the feeling that it might need a good redesign, maybe a > version 3.0.0 ;-) The version I got from EPEL was 3.0.3.. ? I would be delighted to help if you are interested in it. My previous wave of changes did not meet with your approval, and I inferred that this meant you look at the problem differently than I do. I am not offended by this, it's your project. But I did stop trying to contribute. I definitely look at the problem from the perspective of "Automatic production of entire dependency chains". If you think that is a worthwhile direction to go, I would be happy to help get there. - Allen S. Rout _______________________________________________ r-devel mailing list r-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
