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

Ken Brown kbrown@cornell.edu
Sat Jan 13 22:55:00 GMT 2018

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.


More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list