FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux Pacman Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-11-2008, 03:21 PM
"Travis Willard"
 
Default Conf file mis-configuration by users

http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=315809#p315809

I see this happening all the time - people want to enable a repo, ONLY
uncomment the Include line, then complain when it doesn't work. I
know it's PEBKAC, but can anyone think of a way we could change the
conf file to decrease the amount of times this happens?

Will an additional comment actually help? Is there a better way to
get this point across, say reorganization of the file?

I'd make a patch for the conf file with a super comment warning
against this, but I noticed all repo configuration was removed from
pacman.conf in the pacman.git repo - maybe this discussion doesn't
even belong on the pacman-dev list anymore? :P

_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 
Old 01-11-2008, 03:51 PM
Xavier
 
Default Conf file mis-configuration by users

Travis Willard wrote:
> http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=315809#p315809
>
> I see this happening all the time - people want to enable a repo, ONLY
> uncomment the Include line, then complain when it doesn't work. I
> know it's PEBKAC, but can anyone think of a way we could change the
> conf file to decrease the amount of times this happens?
>
> Will an additional comment actually help? Is there a better way to
> get this point across, say reorganization of the file?
>

I agree, this issue is happening all the time. it's unbelievable.
To be honest, this issue always reminds me of your sync / local split
proposal (its goal was also limiting pebkac), so I was counting on you
I already tried to think about reoganizing the file but didn't come
up with anything.

> I'd make a patch for the conf file with a super comment warning
> against this, but I noticed all repo configuration was removed from
> pacman.conf in the pacman.git repo - maybe this discussion doesn't
> even belong on the pacman-dev list anymore? :P
>

Well, afaik the pacman package is on topic here, so even if the conf
file is moved from the git repo to the package, this discussion still
belongs here. You can always just attach the whole file.
But I should rather let Dan answer since he knows better.

_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 
Old 01-11-2008, 04:40 PM
"Dan McGee"
 
Default Conf file mis-configuration by users

On Jan 11, 2008 10:51 AM, Xavier <shiningxc@gmail.com> wrote:
> Travis Willard wrote:
> > http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=315809#p315809
> >
> > I see this happening all the time - people want to enable a repo, ONLY
> > uncomment the Include line, then complain when it doesn't work. I
> > know it's PEBKAC, but can anyone think of a way we could change the
> > conf file to decrease the amount of times this happens?
> >
> > Will an additional comment actually help? Is there a better way to
> > get this point across, say reorganization of the file?
> >
>
> I agree, this issue is happening all the time. it's unbelievable.
> To be honest, this issue always reminds me of your sync / local split
> proposal (its goal was also limiting pebkac), so I was counting on you
> I already tried to think about reoganizing the file but didn't come
> up with anything.

We are not using a crazy config file. It is basically ini format,
which is quite standard, and I don't know a better way to go. All I
can say is adding a comment saying "# don't be a bonehead and
UNCOMMENT the [repo] headers!" or something.

> > I'd make a patch for the conf file with a super comment warning
> > against this, but I noticed all repo configuration was removed from
> > pacman.conf in the pacman.git repo - maybe this discussion doesn't
> > even belong on the pacman-dev list anymore? :P
> >
>
> Well, afaik the pacman package is on topic here, so even if the conf
> file is moved from the git repo to the package, this discussion still
> belongs here. You can always just attach the whole file.
> But I should rather let Dan answer since he knows better.

Comment is not a bad idea, although I just shake my head every time I
see these threads. Editors do have syntax highlighting too, which
makes this more obvious. I guess firing up the Gnome text editor as
root probably doesn't though.

-Dan

_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 
Old 01-11-2008, 04:53 PM
eliott
 
Default Conf file mis-configuration by users

On 1/11/08, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2008 10:51 AM, Xavier <shiningxc@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Travis Willard wrote:
> > > http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=315809#p315809
> > >
> > > I see this happening all the time - people want to enable a repo, ONLY
> > > uncomment the Include line, then complain when it doesn't work. I
> > > know it's PEBKAC, but can anyone think of a way we could change the
> > > conf file to decrease the amount of times this happens?
> > >
> > > Will an additional comment actually help? Is there a better way to
> > > get this point across, say reorganization of the file?
> > >
> >
> > I agree, this issue is happening all the time. it's unbelievable.
> > To be honest, this issue always reminds me of your sync / local split
> > proposal (its goal was also limiting pebkac), so I was counting on you
> > I already tried to think about reoganizing the file but didn't come
> > up with anything.
>
> We are not using a crazy config file. It is basically ini format,
> which is quite standard, and I don't know a better way to go. All I
> can say is adding a comment saying "# don't be a bonehead and
> UNCOMMENT the [repo] headers!" or something.
>
> > > I'd make a patch for the conf file with a super comment warning
> > > against this, but I noticed all repo configuration was removed from
> > > pacman.conf in the pacman.git repo - maybe this discussion doesn't
> > > even belong on the pacman-dev list anymore? :P
> > >
> >
> > Well, afaik the pacman package is on topic here, so even if the conf
> > file is moved from the git repo to the package, this discussion still
> > belongs here. You can always just attach the whole file.
> > But I should rather let Dan answer since he knows better.
>
> Comment is not a bad idea, although I just shake my head every time I
> see these threads. Editors do have syntax highlighting too, which
> makes this more obvious. I guess firing up the Gnome text editor as
> root probably doesn't though.

Even the best laid plans can be foiled by people who don't read
documentation, or don't ask questions.
Even my toaster came with a 'how to make toast' guide in the box. I
liked the part about 'insert bread into toaster slots'.

I say leave it as it is, and just include some verbiage in the arch
install guide, and pacman man page about it.

_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 
Old 01-11-2008, 05:06 PM
Xavier
 
Default Conf file mis-configuration by users

Dan McGee wrote:
>
> We are not using a crazy config file. It is basically ini format,
> which is quite standard, and I don't know a better way to go. All I
> can say is adding a comment saying "# don't be a bonehead and
> UNCOMMENT the [repo] headers!" or something.
>

Right, maybe a little comment would be enough.

>
> Comment is not a bad idea, although I just shake my head every time I
> see these threads. Editors do have syntax highlighting too, which
> makes this more obvious. I guess firing up the Gnome text editor as
> root probably doesn't though.
>

Oh I see, that explains everything. I didn't notice previously, but
syntax highlighting indeed helps a lot here. Probably that helped me
never doing that mistake, and which is why I find it stupid.
So besides the comment, we should also educate the users to use syntax
highlighting, not using gnome text editor, and using sudo. Now there are
probably many people that would object to these 3 advices, but well

_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 
Old 01-11-2008, 05:28 PM
Eric Belanger
 
Default Conf file mis-configuration by users

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, Xavier wrote:

> Dan McGee wrote:
>>
>> We are not using a crazy config file. It is basically ini format,
>> which is quite standard, and I don't know a better way to go. All I
>> can say is adding a comment saying "# don't be a bonehead and
>> UNCOMMENT the [repo] headers!" or something.
>>
>
> Right, maybe a little comment would be enough.

Maybe also having the comment before the [repo] line instead of after it
would help users noticing the [repo] header better.


>
>>
>> Comment is not a bad idea, although I just shake my head every time I
>> see these threads. Editors do have syntax highlighting too, which
>> makes this more obvious. I guess firing up the Gnome text editor as
>> root probably doesn't though.
>>
>
> Oh I see, that explains everything. I didn't notice previously, but
> syntax highlighting indeed helps a lot here. Probably that helped me
> never doing that mistake, and which is why I find it stupid.
> So besides the comment, we should also educate the users to use syntax
> highlighting, not using gnome text editor, and using sudo. Now there are
> probably many people that would object to these 3 advices, but well
>
> _______________________________________________
> pacman-dev mailing list
> pacman-dev@archlinux.org
> http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
>
>


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.


_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 
Old 01-11-2008, 05:55 PM
"Dan McGee"
 
Default Conf file mis-configuration by users

On Jan 11, 2008 12:28 PM, Eric Belanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, Xavier wrote:
>
> > Dan McGee wrote:
> >>
> >> We are not using a crazy config file. It is basically ini format,
> >> which is quite standard, and I don't know a better way to go. All I
> >> can say is adding a comment saying "# don't be a bonehead and
> >> UNCOMMENT the [repo] headers!" or something.
> >>
> >
> > Right, maybe a little comment would be enough.
>
> Maybe also having the comment before the [repo] line instead of after it
> would help users noticing the [repo] header better.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> Comment is not a bad idea, although I just shake my head every time I
> >> see these threads. Editors do have syntax highlighting too, which
> >> makes this more obvious. I guess firing up the Gnome text editor as
> >> root probably doesn't though.
> >>
> >
> > Oh I see, that explains everything. I didn't notice previously, but
> > syntax highlighting indeed helps a lot here. Probably that helped me
> > never doing that mistake, and which is why I find it stupid.
> > So besides the comment, we should also educate the users to use syntax
> > highlighting, not using gnome text editor, and using sudo. Now there are
> > probably many people that would object to these 3 advices, but well

Travis- with this body of thoughts in mind, want to put together a
patch for the current pacman.conf that may help improve things?

-Dan

_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 
Old 01-11-2008, 07:23 PM
"Travis Willard"
 
Default Conf file mis-configuration by users

On Jan 11, 2008 1:55 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2008 12:28 PM, Eric Belanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, Xavier wrote:
> >
> > > Dan McGee wrote:
> > >>
> > >> We are not using a crazy config file. It is basically ini format,
> > >> which is quite standard, and I don't know a better way to go. All I
> > >> can say is adding a comment saying "# don't be a bonehead and
> > >> UNCOMMENT the [repo] headers!" or something.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Right, maybe a little comment would be enough.
> >
> > Maybe also having the comment before the [repo] line instead of after it
> > would help users noticing the [repo] header better.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Comment is not a bad idea, although I just shake my head every time I
> > >> see these threads. Editors do have syntax highlighting too, which
> > >> makes this more obvious. I guess firing up the Gnome text editor as
> > >> root probably doesn't though.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Oh I see, that explains everything. I didn't notice previously, but
> > > syntax highlighting indeed helps a lot here. Probably that helped me
> > > never doing that mistake, and which is why I find it stupid.
> > > So besides the comment, we should also educate the users to use syntax
> > > highlighting, not using gnome text editor, and using sudo. Now there are
> > > probably many people that would object to these 3 advices, but well
>
> Travis- with this body of thoughts in mind, want to put together a
> patch for the current pacman.conf that may help improve things?

Yeah, sure, I'll jiggle it around a bit and see what falls out.
Thanks for the input guys.

_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 
Old 01-11-2008, 08:39 PM
"Aaron Griffin"
 
Default Conf file mis-configuration by users

On Jan 11, 2008 12:28 PM, Eric Belanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, Xavier wrote:
>
> > Dan McGee wrote:
> >>
> >> We are not using a crazy config file. It is basically ini format,
> >> which is quite standard, and I don't know a better way to go. All I
> >> can say is adding a comment saying "# don't be a bonehead and
> >> UNCOMMENT the [repo] headers!" or something.
> >>
> >
> > Right, maybe a little comment would be enough.
>
> Maybe also having the comment before the [repo] line instead of after it
> would help users noticing the [repo] header better.

I always figured this was the reason for it. We have something like:

#[foobar]
#this is the foobar crap
#Include= /foo/bar

Additionally, I was laughingly explaining the PEBKAC to a coworker,
and he said the following: "If it's ini style, it shouldn't really
hurt to have empty sections. Why not simply leave the headings
uncommented", which might also work.

Insert toast into slot

_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 
Old 01-11-2008, 08:45 PM
"Roman Kyrylych"
 
Default Conf file mis-configuration by users

2008/1/11, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
> On Jan 11, 2008 12:28 PM, Eric Belanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, Xavier wrote:
> >
> > > Dan McGee wrote:
> > >>
> > >> We are not using a crazy config file. It is basically ini format,
> > >> which is quite standard, and I don't know a better way to go. All I
> > >> can say is adding a comment saying "# don't be a bonehead and
> > >> UNCOMMENT the [repo] headers!" or something.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Right, maybe a little comment would be enough.
> >
> > Maybe also having the comment before the [repo] line instead of after it
> > would help users noticing the [repo] header better.
>
> I always figured this was the reason for it. We have something like:
>
> #[foobar]
> #this is the foobar crap
> #Include= /foo/bar
>
> Additionally, I was laughingly explaining the PEBKAC to a coworker,
> and he said the following: "If it's ini style, it shouldn't really
> hurt to have empty sections. Why not simply leave the headings
> uncommented", which might also work.
>
> Insert toast into slot
>

IMO allowing empty sections is not a good idea.

I can have many entries like:
[repo]
# Server = lalala
# Include = lalala
Server = lalala
# Server = lalala
It's much easier to distinguish which repo is enabled by looking if
[repo] is uncommented, instead of looking if there is at least one
Server/Include uncommented.

We cannot make everything foolproof.
The current scheme is fine as it is.
It's better to let people complain about "errors" and be corrected then,
than allowing them to use bad style and allowing them to rely on
foolproofness of the system.

--
Roman Kyrylych (*оман Кирилич)
_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 02:46 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org