On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 09:40:29PM +0100, Maarten de Vries wrote: > On 18 December 2016 at 21:32, Leonid Isaev <leonid.isaev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 02:25:00PM -0600, David C. Rankin wrote: > > > I know this is small-potatoes stuff, but I just wonder if in these > > > instances, it may not be better to either provide pre-update notice or > > do a > > > post-install script rather than relying on a post update action by the > > user? > > > At least in the cases where you know up-front that existing > > functionality will > > > be disabled by the upgrade. (which was apparent from the comment) > > > > Hmm, what about reading /var/log/pacman.log? > > > > > A log is great for figuring out what went happened after something broke, > but it shouldn't have to be part of a normal upgrade procedure in my > opinion. Personally I do think the provided message was enough though. Update messages are hard to see if they scroll past quickly, or when updating via scripts. On the other hand, pacman.log contains "warning:" lines that show which files were renamed. And why do you believe that logs are only useful post-mortem? -- Leonid Isaev
