Greetings, and thanks so much for this! Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Certainly. I have a local upload waiting a fix for the custom build > > target. make has broken/changed since atlas3 was put together, and > > now the ordering of the rules is out of control. My intention was to > > upload a fix for everything at once since it takes so long to get > > atlas through the build system. This is the most important bug > > outstanding, IMHO. > > What I can propose you is sending you what I currently have for > *.config, *.templates, README.Debian and po/* > > See attached tarball. > > They represent my understanding of what should be kept in templates > and what should be put in templates.....indeed all no_* templates and > them only. > OK, then our opinions now are quite close. ldlp,nfs ->README.Debian, no_? ->error templates. Question now is what to do with successful blas/lapack diversions. I recommend we follow the output given by a genuine diversion -- i.e. perhaps skip the note entirely and just spit out a line to the screen. > > OK, looking over this again, how about this: > > > > README.Debian: > > > > atlas3/ldlp > > atlas3/nfs > > > > Low priority notes and README.Debian: > > > > atlas3/blas_lapack > > atlas3-foo/foo_extensions > > Well, as low priority notes, they will be unused...and a big burden to > translators. > OK, so no low priority notes. This info should either be a high priority note, or a one-line diversion note. At least the former are only seen once, not on each upgrade. > > > > > Medium(or high ?) priority notes: > > > > atlas3-foo/no_foo > > high, definitely. And, indeed, turned into "error" templates.... > OK > > The idea is that the user should be made aware in some fashion at > > runtime that certain libraries previously installed have been > > transparently overriden. The mechanism is akin to a diversion, which, > > if memory serves, does appear on the installation screen somewhere. > > The user should be made especially aware that certain performance they > > think they should be getting is not available, and in effect the > > package is 'dead code'. > > If the user *must* be aware, then the templates should be high > priority.... Otherwise, I still think they should see README.Debian. > > > > But, moreover, as they use low priority, they are indeed NOT seen by > > > probably 90 or 95% of your users. So, as such, they *are* useless. I > > > suggest that you go through the details of the rationale given in the > > > recent bug reports I sent: I couldn't develop better. > > > > > > > If all low priority notes are useless, then why does this priority > > exist? Should they be medium, then? > > What is actually very actively discouraged is the note+low (and at > some extent note+medium) combination. > > other type of templates such as "select" still make good use of low > priority. > > > Again, given that probably 80 to 90% of users will use the default > setting of debconf (high priority) they will never see low and medium > priority notes. That's all the point of these bug reports. > OK > > > Please taken into account that the current maintainer of debconf (Joey > > > Hess) himself thinks that low and medium priority notes fall under a > > > contradiction and considers completely removing the support for notes. > > > > > > > I don't get this at all. Perhaps there should be but one priority > > setting, but how else should a package be sure that the user sees > > something? Can you imagine the spurious bug reports that should be > > eliminated by well placed notes in a case like this? > > Unfortunately notes have been abused way too much. The datatype was > originally meant for very cautious use and has been diverted as a > derivative of package documentation....that's the main point of very > extreme reaction suggesting the complete removal of notes. > Do you think the user *must* be made aware that installing this package obviates some other package? Perhaps not. > > > These "no_*" notes become *error* templates type which is perfectly > > > acceptable. > > > > > > > OK, an error template is likely better -- is this new? How does it > > differ from a high priority note? > > It will be shown in *any* case to users. > OK. Please allow me to ask you one other Debian etch release related question, as you are much closer to recent developments than I. Are packages still being kept out of testing if they have problems on any of the less common of the 11 arches? The buildd mechanism and gcc quality on some machines has definitely gone down since Sarge, in which my packages were fully portable across all 11. Must I now remove certain platforms from the Arch list of the control file to get them into testing, i.e. that is if I cannot get a timely response from the buildd systems? Take care, > > -- Camm Maguire [EMAIL PROTECTED] ========================================================================== "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
