synaptic-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Synaptic-devel] [Patch] better RPM error reporting


From: Panu Matilainen
Subject: Re: [Synaptic-devel] [Patch] better RPM error reporting
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:49:08 +0300 (EEST)

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Michael Vogt wrote:

> Dear Friends,
> 
> 
> attached is a patch against the current trunk of the synaptic
> repository (but it should apply to 0.52 as well). 
> 
> It adds error reporting for cases like failures in gpg checks. I would
> be interessted in testing from rpm users. I wonder if it plays nicley
> with vte on rpm systems (I can't test it as my suse install does only
> have 0.11.10 and I need 0.11.11). 
> 
> I would also love to get feedback from the rpm gurus about the patch
> (Gustavo, Panu). 
> 
> If the feedback is positive and the patch works fine, I'll apply it
> for 0.53.

I'm currently stranded on W2K box with ssh access to my box so I can't 
really test it but looks good to me - in fact Synaptic *used* to dump 
errors at some point, probably < 0.50 so the errors were catched correctly 
in this case.

The addition to enable setting RPM::GPG-Check is nice but I think we 
should be checking whether the gpg-checker script is present on the 
system before enabling the toggle button for it, afterall the checking is 
done by an external lua-script which isn't necessarily present on a given 
apt-rpm system. 

Now this made me think it'd be cool if there was a generic mechanism to
make configuration options from lua-scripts to show up in Synaptic. At the
moment there probably aren't that many scripts that could really take
advantage of this but who knows what the future will bring :)

I'm thinking of something along lines of lua-scripts optionally setting a 
configuration list of items that should be present in synaptic, eg
Synaptic::Lua::Options:: ['RPM::GPG-Check', 'Check package GPG 
signatures']
..and then populate the options window (perhaps some "add-on" tab) based 
on that. We should optimally be passing in type as well .. this might get 
a little complicated, the details of how to sanely pass in the necessary 
information through apt's config system needs more thought at least :-/

Thoughts?

        - Panu -




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]