On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 12:02:32PM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Thursday, 21 December 2006 at 09:06, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Do the GuideLines/Does the FPC have an opinion on rpms intentionally
> > printing out textual messages during installs?
> >
> > At least, I could not find a corresponding paragraph in the GuideLines.
> >
> >
> > Background: tripwire's spec (Currently under review) contains this:
> >
> > %post
> > ...
> > # Print getting started help message
> > if [ $1 -eq 1 ]; then
> > echo To configure tripwire, read: %_docdir/%{name}-%{version}/README.Fedora
> > fi
> >
> >
> > I don't have a strong opinion on this and actually am ambivalent.
> >
> > On one hand, such messages can be helpful to users.
The same is true of about every daemon in Fedora, e.g. installing a
server would spill your screen with several dozens of hints of you
needing to configure web, nfs, ftp etc. services. :)
The nose would drown real errors from the rpm transaction.
> > On the other hand, in general, rpm-installs should be silent as much as
> > possible.
>
> Personally I'm against any install-time messages from rpm. If there are
> any, they should indicate a warning or an error.
> I was going to ask the submitter to remove this.
I agree with Rathann: rpm output has been assumed to be silent if
everything is all right since its very beginning. Perhaps it's even
documented in maximum rpm or rpm's source code.
Anyway a strong -1 to allowing any non-error/warning output.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp1XKi0BhgBF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
