[PATCH setup 00/14] Use libsolv, solve all our problems... (WIP)
Sun Jan 14 00:00:00 GMT 2018
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.Â I'm not sure we want to "strongly
>>> the default solution over the other solution(s).Â I guess what we
>>> really want to
>>> say is that we strongly recommend resolving the problems before
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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.Â 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.Â 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.Â 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.Â I
> don't yet have a good candidate for that wording.
Something like the attached might do the job.
-------------- next part --------------
>From d15d18dfa4db91416155385034bccf31be88ece3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ken Brown <email@example.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 18:50:14 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] Clarify the unsolved-problems warning
If the user unchecks the 'Accept default solutions' box and selects
'Next', don't imply that choosing a non-default solution would break
prereq.cc | 7 +++----
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/prereq.cc b/prereq.cc
index a03e79b..4926c65 100644
@@ -96,10 +96,9 @@ PrereqPage::OnNext ()
// breakage imminent! danger, danger
int res = MessageBox (h,
- "We strongly recommend that you accept the default solutions. "
- "Some packages may not work properly if you don't."
+ "Some packages may not work properly if you continue."
- "Are you sure you want to proceed?",
+ "Are you sure you want to proceed (NOT RECOMMENDED)?",
"WARNING - Unsolved Problems",
MB_YESNO | MB_ICONEXCLAMATION | MB_DEFBUTTON2);
if (res == IDNO)
@@ -107,7 +106,7 @@ PrereqPage::OnNext ()
Log (LOG_PLAIN) <<
- "NOTE! User refused the default solutions! "
+ "NOTE! User continued with unsolved problems! "
"Expect some packages to give errors or not function at all." << endLog;
// Change the solver's transaction list to reflect the user's choices.
More information about the Cygwin-apps