On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 01:31:48PM -0700, Michael Stenner wrote: > I think this is indeed the way to go. Several notes: > > 1) it doesn't need to be perfect. The idea is to provide something > useful to people that need a quick-and-dirty. We have a full > python interface if folks need more. > > 2) there's not a lot of room for feedback. If you go the bitmask > route, there are 16 bits? I suggest leaving a few for "general" > feedback and the rest for specific feedback. For example: > > 1 - warnings, but not necessarily error (this to be determined > by seth unilaterally or after some discussion) > 2 - some sort of error (same) > 4 - package(s) already installed (also 1) > 8 - requested package could not be installed (also 2) > etc Should the corresponding information be summarized in the log, then? The reason, etc. should go somewhere. > 3) another approach would be to not use bitmasks but specific codes > > 1 - unspecified error > 2 - unspecified warning > 3 - packages already installed > 4 - package could not be installed > etc > > You get more room with this approach, but you can't combine. > > Anyway, my main point is that 0 should mean nothing wacky happened > (again, just make the call to serve as many people as possible... the > rest will just have to cope), provide specific feedback for a few > common cases and provide general feedback for the rest. That'll meet > the needs of 95% of the people who want this. The rest will have to > suck it up. That's what they have to do now. Agreed, but it should, in general, get to the log as well. -Peter -- The 5 year plan: In five years we'll make up another plan. Or just re-use this one.
