Cleaning up pkg-message

[David Demelier]

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