unity-design team mailing list archive

["Paulo J. S. Silva" <pjssilva@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Em Ter, 2009-07-07 às 11:14 +0200, Steve Dodier escreveu:

> I know that in most cases this is not needed since the update will
> happen well, but i think its better to make users expect to have to
> act. If their mirror goes down, if debconf asks if a file should be
> merged, if a dep is broken, if a public PPA key is missing, then the
> user will need to be able to act in order to solve the problem.
> 
> 
I am sorry, but do you realize that the ordinary users we are talking
about here would not know what to do in any of those cases? For an
ordinary user updates should go without questions. I am not an ordinary
user but usually my updates don't ask me do any of those things.

The best idea I've seen so far is Vencenzo's one. Spend time and effort
making it possible to revert upgrades if failure occurs at next login.

Another interesting venue of thinking, would be to postpone updates that
need user interaction (the package manager started the upgrade and
realizes that the configuration file changes and wants your
intervention, he then reverts the upgrade to the original package and
warns the user in the next login that an update was pending because it
needs manual user intervention).

I believe that both ideas are worth considering.

And David Siegel, yes I can always think about specific cases where
people wants to move away from the computer or start working right now.
There is no solution that will cover all cases. We can only hope to find
a solution that works in most of the cases and is not very bad in the
corner cases. I still think that updates should be possible at any time,
let it be login, regular use, or logout.

Paulo