From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Mon Jun 10 09:13:44 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2279E15B9F02 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 09:13:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from markand@malikania.fr) Received: from smtp.smtpout.orange.fr (smtp13.smtpout.orange.fr [80.12.242.135]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "Bizanga Labs SMTP Client Certificate", Issuer "Bizanga Labs CA" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EE896A964 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 09:13:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from markand@malikania.fr) Received: from postfix.malikania.fr ([5.135.187.121]) by mwinf5d72 with ME id NxDZ2000B2dbEiD03xDZ4Q; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 11:13:34 +0200 X-ME-Helo: postfix.malikania.fr X-ME-Auth: ZGVtZWxpZXIuZGF2aWRAb3JhbmdlLmZy X-ME-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 11:13:34 +0200 X-ME-IP: 5.135.187.121 Received: from [167.3.108.158] (unknown [77.159.242.243]) by postfix.malikania.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B7204204AC1 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 11:13:32 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: Cleaning up pkg-message To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: From: David Demelier Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 11:13:32 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 7EE896A964 X-Spamd-Bar: +++++ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [5.06 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.98)[0.978,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-ports@freebsd.org]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[malikania.fr]; NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(1.00)[1.000,0]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[135.242.12.80.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(0.98)[0.982,0]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[malikania.fr]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:3215, ipnet:80.12.240.0/20, country:FR]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; IP_SCORE(1.21)[ip: (2.99), ipnet: 80.12.240.0/20(1.71), asn: 3215(1.35), country: FR(-0.01)] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 09:13:44 -0000 Le 08/06/2019 à 20:11, Adam Weinberger a écrit : > Hello everyone, > > I want to get some stakeholder input on our pkg-message files. I think > we need to have a clear policy about what does and doesn't belong in > them, and I'd like to get your input. > > pkg-message is shown to every user on every install. UPDATING is only > shown when users run `pkg updating` *and* /usr/ports/UPDATING exists. > I suspect that only a small proportion of users do that. > > pkg-message needs to contain only highly relevant information. Many, > many ports have messages with irrelevant information that users are > likely to get message fatigue and ignore them entirely. I don't want > to pick on Joe Barbish, because his work is absolutely fantastic, but > dns/dns2blackhole/pkg-message is an example of a giant message that > tells users to do the same thing they always do for any port: > ######################################################################## > > dns2blackhole > > Malware Prevention through Domain Blocking (Black Hole) > > Issue "man dns2blackhole" For configuration and usage information > > ######################################################################## > > We now have the ability to specify messages that appear on initial > install, or on upgrades from/to specific version. So here is what I > propose as policy: > >>>> > pkg-message must contain only information that is vital to setup and > operation, and that is unique to the port in question. Setup > information should only be shown on initial install, and upgrade > instructions should be shown only when upgrading to the relevant > version. All committers have blanket approval to constrain existing > messages to install/upgrade ranges using the UCL format > specifications. Message pruning falls under the blanket approval as > well, but committers are encouraged to get maintainer input > beforehand. > <<< > > What are your thoughts? > > # Adam > > I've also proposed an idea to remove all fancy styles from those messages especially because their are not uniformized. Unfortunately it didn't get much attention saying that it's not a real necessity to work on changing this just for aesthetic purposes. But if we start making a policy on that, could be nice to include this too. Regards -- David