The solution you propose would provide a dramatically inferior user experience to the current implementation. I'm not going to do that.
While my timer solution is unconventional, it is deterministic and straightforward, works as intended, and provides a good UX. I'm not going to change it to something with an inferior UX over vague discomfort with the idea of using a timer this way. On September 26, 2024 4:35:07 PM EDT, Josh Triplett <j...@joshtriplett.org> wrote: >In an ideal world, I would suggest: >- running it asynchronously from the maintainer script, >- print a message from the maintainer script saying how to run the job > manually if it gets interrupted, "or it will be run synchronously on > the next apt upgrade", and >- when apt-listchanges runs at upgrade time, if it hasn't yet been run, > run it synchronously then. -- Sent from my phone. Please excuse brevity and autocorrect errors.
