Re: [PATCH setup 00/14] Use libsolv, solve all our problems... (WIP)

[Ken Brown <kbrown at cornell dot edu>]

On 1/13/2018 5:55 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
> On 1/13/2018 4:29 PM, Brian Inglis wrote:
> > On 2018-01-13 12:56, Ken Brown wrote:
> > > 2. We should probably remove, or at least reword, the dire warning about
> > > accepting the default solutions.  I'm not sure we want to "strongly 
> > > recommend"
> > > the default solution over the other solution(s).  I guess what we 
> > > really want to
> > > say is that we strongly recommend resolving the problems before 
> > > continuing.
> >
> > For users who only run setup and use programs, a dire warning and strong
> > recommendations are appropriate.
> >
> > Alternatives are to also remove all packages dependent on the package 
> > to be
> > removed, or lastly, to remove only the requested package, leaving the
> > installation inconsistent. Those alternatives would have to be 
> > presented to the
> > user for selection, then executed.
> >
> > Anything else requiring the user to resolve would require a FAQ entry 
> > explaining
> > what that meant, what diagnosis and actions would be required, and 
> > that would
> > probably generate emails from users asking what they should do.
> >
> > Better to allow the solver to resolve issues and just let users choose
> > straightforward alternatives, with the view of trying to keep the 
> > installation
> > consistent, unless explicitly overridden, such as to test an alternative
> > implementation of a dependency installed outside of setup.
>
> The current situation on the topic/libsolv branch is the following. 
> Suppose A requires B and the user asks to uninstall B.  They will get a 
> problem report showing two possible solutions:
>
> 1. Uninstall A.
> 2. (default) Don't uninstall B.
>
> If they uncheck 'Accept default solutions' and select 'Next', they'll 
> get a warning that says "We strongly recommend that you accept the 
> default solutions.  Some packages may not work properly if you don't. 
> Are you sure you want to proceed?"
>
> This is misleading insofar as it implies that something bad will happen 
> if the user prefers to solve the problem by uninstalling A.  What is 
> true is that some packages may not work properly if the user answers 'Yes'.
>
> I think we should be able to find wording that is accurate while still 
> making it clear that we recommend going back and fixing the problem.  I 
> don't yet have a good candidate for that wording.

Something like the attached might do the job.

Ken

Attachment: 0001-Clarify-the-unsolved-problems-warning.patch
Description: Text document