[pkg-discuss] Proposal for user intent

[Brock Pytlik]

Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 02:15:39PM -0700, Brock Pytlik wrote:
>   
>> I guess we just have different opinions about what our user base looks 
>> like, and neither of us has data to back it up, except for the 
>> complaints we've received about current approaches. It's not just about 
>>     
>
> "The squeaky wheel gets the grease".
>
> Problem is: what if this fix leads to more complaints?  Sure, I can't
> prove it will happen, but it stands to reason.
>
>   
I'm not asking for proof, I am asking for a common use scenario where 
this will happen. If you can present one, we'll reconsider. I'm not 
interested in creating a large call generator to replace a large call 
generator. So far, I have seen no indication other than vague and 
nebulous warnings that this change will be a large call generator.
>> saving disk space, it's about providing the information needed to make 
>> group packages work. Several times we've been told that the current 
>> system of 'pkg install amp-dev'; 'pkg uninstall amp-dev' leaving large 
>> numbers of applications on your system isn't helpful. This is needed to 
>> fix that issue. It has the bonus of also making uninstall more generally 
>> work as our users have told us they expect it to work.
>>     
>
> Perhaps we need pkg uninstall to have an option to consider or disregard
> user intent?  That'd be a good middle of the road.
>
>   
That's exactly what we have now. It's generating many complaints.
>> Also, this will let us handle things like a package being obsoleted, so 
>> it's removed from your system. Then it's resurrected. Now, do you want 
>> that package back on your system or not? Well, that depends on whether 
>> you manually removed the package yourself, or it was removed because it 
>> was obsolete.
>>     
>
> If it was obsoleted then you didn't need it any longer.  That it gets
> resurrected cannot imply that you want it back, but certainly it
> shouldn't cause harm to add it back (provided services it installs and
> what not is disabled by default).
>
>   
Right, unless I purposefully uninstalled it, then adding it back is not 
what the user expects.
>> If you're right and we tick off a large number of users, we can always 
>> put things back the way it was before.
>>     
>
> Yes, I said as much.  Just beware.
>   
Warning so noted. I'll be sure to let you know if/when we change our 
minds or you're proven right.

Brock