Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-features (201 mails)

< Previous Next >
[openFATE 301175] Update Messages Handling
  • From: fate_noreply@xxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:37:24 +0200 (CEST)
  • Message-id: <feature-301175-30@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Feature changed by: Christoph Thiel (cthiel1)
Feature #301175, revision 30
Title: Update Messages Handling

openSUSE-10.2: Rejected by Andreas Jaeger (a_jaeger)
reject date: 2006-11-23 08:29:21
reject reason: not done in time...
Priority
Requester: Mandatory
Projectmanager: Important

openSUSE-10.3: Rejected by Stephan Kulow (coolo)
reject date: 2007-08-07 11:17:55
reject reason: Solution needs to be integrated earlier in the release
Priority
Requester: Mandatory
Projectmanager: Important

- openSUSE-11.2: Evaluation
+ openSUSE-11.2: Rejected by Christoph Thiel (cthiel1)
+ reject date: 2009-04-21 15:36:05
+ reject reason: No resources for 11.2 -- moving to 11.3.
Priority
Requester: Mandatory

+ openSUSE-11.3: New
+ Priority
+ Requester: Mandatory

Requested by: Andreas Jaeger (a_jaeger)
Requested by: Marcus Meissner (msmeissn)

Description:
During update of packages they could notify users about changes via
email and/or the SuSEplugger (until 10.0, this is not anymore in 10.1).
Most of these are outdated and not really usefull anymore and should be
removed. The question is how to handle situations like bind where
config files get rewritten and the user should be informed if this
fails.
In general, it is not possible to send emails from rpm install scripts.
Most cases could be handled by the release notes but there are cases
that cannot and we need a better solution to present this, especially
since many people to not read the local emails.

Relations:
- update-messages functionality not implemented (novell/bugzilla/id:
4500930)
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=4500930

Discussion:
#2: Hendrik Vogelsang (hennevogel) (2006-09-05 14:52:12)
Cleanup the messages and readd the features we lost with the removal of
SUSEPlugger to zen-updater or whatever?

#3: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2006-11-02 11:48:15)
Current patches offer the message feature, so you could basically offer
that package as a patch. If that is not sufficient, I propose
something: We add a /var/spool/zypp-messages or something, and a binary
which rpm spec call to inject messages. The zypp backend of the applet,
check the spool in every check and use knotify to notifiy the user. I
am only missing, where does the current rpm inject the messages to?

#5: Edith Parzefall (emapedl) (2007-02-01 17:30:54)
Andreas: any comments on the proposed solutions?

#6: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2007-07-27 15:58:07)
A proposal for normal packages:
Create a dbus/dcop interface both applets implement.
* create a /usr/sbin/update-messsage wrapper that allows rpms to send a
message.
* the wrapper sends a dcop/dbus message to the applets, which in turn
show a passive popup?
Other ideas?

#7: Edith Parzefall (emapedl) (2007-08-06 13:50:22)
Coolo, should we go ahead with the proposed solution and make a late
feature admission request?

#8: Stephan Kulow (coolo) (2007-08-06 19:18:17) (reply to #7)
No, this requires documentation changes I'm not willing to accept. So I
rather stay with the status quo ;(

#9: Edith Parzefall (emapedl) (2007-08-07 11:05:55)
Then please reject for 10.3.

#10: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2008-07-25 17:19:05)
Please reject for 11.0. All resources allocated with mandatory features
already.

#11: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2008-07-25 17:32:22)
Please reject for SLE11/11.1. All resources allocated with mandatory
features already.

#12: Marcus Meissner (msmeissn) (2008-12-03 15:50:15)
This was promised as "will be done" to the Maintenance Department.
Mark it Mandatory for SP1.

#13: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) (2009-01-23 15:39:07) (reply to
#12)
please note, any solution must not break "RPM only" compatibility - meaning
these should be notification messages, not scripts used in any event to
finish configuration or to cause "side effects" of any kind.

#14: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) (2009-01-23 15:38:53)
I disagree with the rationale that users don't read local mail. An
admin should have that local mail forwarded, and I think we ought to
facilitate configuring the forwarding even to other machines.
I think that may have more success than popups... at least for
Enterprise customers. For community use, sure, popups are helpful (as
init 5 is more likely :-)

#15: Stephan Kulow (coolo) (2009-03-04 11:35:25) (reply to #14)
but who would send these mails if rpm is the only vehicle we can be
sure of. We don't want packages to send mails.



--
openSUSE Feature:
https://features.opensuse.org/301175

< Previous Next >
This Thread
  • No further messages