On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:13:14PM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2008/12/14 22:47, Jacob Meuser wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 12:04:54PM +0100, Antoine Jacoutot wrote: > > > On Sun, 14 Dec 2008, Jacob Meuser wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > ok? > > > > > > Well... does this mean that now we have 3 different places to look for > > > info ? > > > DESCR, MESSAGE and README.OpenBSD? > > > > > > It seems even worse now and I think it shouldn't be touched before we > > > come up with some kind of consensus over this. > > > > well, I looked at the MESSAGE files as well as DESCR, and for all but > > the foomatic-db-gutenprint, the info in MESSAGE seemed just as > > appropriate in DESCR, and didn't make DESCR overly long. > > The problem with putting this in DESCR is that people who already know > what the software does are unlikely to read it, and historically we haven't > put much really useful information there, so people aren't trained to look > there.
based on the original "complaint", I disagree. > I'd quite like to have MESSAGE separated from updates somehow...what is > useful at installation time is rarely useful at update time, and vice-versa. well, for the case of cups, I kind of disagree. updating base will overwrite the cups "replacement" files. usually a package update is preceeded by an update of base. but that is of course a special case. otoh, if there is one or two easy places to look (pkg_info foo or a README.OpenBSD), then there is no need for another place. I just really don't find MESSAGE files useful. and it seems lots of long time users don't even know about them, or go digging in /var/db/pkg to find them. -- jake...@sdf.lonestar.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
