From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 4 19:20:25 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 231CD16A4CE for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 19:20:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C64DF43D48 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 19:20:24 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j14JKOej014488 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 19:20:24 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id j14JKOFu014487; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 19:20:24 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 19:20:24 GMT Message-Id: <200502041920.j14JKOFu014487@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Florent Thoumie Subject: Re: bin/77082: src/usr.sbin/pkg_install - Add 3 new macros to clean pkg-plist X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Florent Thoumie List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 19:20:25 -0000 The following reply was made to PR bin/77082; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Florent Thoumie To: Brooks Davis Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org, freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org, hq@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bin/77082: src/usr.sbin/pkg_install - Add 3 new macros to clean pkg-plist Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 20:13:06 +0100 Brooks Davis wrote: > On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 07:41:29PM +0100, Florent Thoumie wrote: > >>Brooks Davis wrote: >> >> >>>It seems like dirrmtry should take an optional message to emit if the >>>event that the directory can not be delete. That way the user can be >>>informed that the directory should be removed if they are really done >>>using the port. >> >> I asked myself if I should put this feature in my patch and >> I finally haven't because it required some extra-stuff >> (handling optional arguments for @ commands is painful), and a >> simple '@unexec [ -d ${PREFIX}/etc ] && echo ...' is easier I >> guess. But that's no problem for me to include that if everybody >> thinks it worth it. > > > Given this workaround, it's probably not a high priority to add this. > Hmm, what about a seperate @echoifexists or similar command? I have nothing against that. The command above sounded really simple to me that it wouldn't need a separate @ command. But why not. >>>Have you thought about how to solve the boot strapping problems with >>>pkg_install/pkg_delete? >> >> I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, I started >> looking at pkg_install source yesterday at night. Could you >> give me some pointers about that ? > > > The issue is that you need to find a way to keep users from installing > packages they can't uninstall. If you add new commands and they are > used in ports, users with older systems won't have the necessicary > pkg_delete commands to make them work. The current system doens't even > give a graceful way of detecting this condition both in the port and > when the users installs a pkg from the -stable collections online. > Longer term, we need some versioning in the plist and ports, but first > we've got to solve the problem we're stuck with now. Ok, what you meant is now clearer to me. I have no good idea of how this exactly works but IIRC i've seen sysutils/pkg_install whose job must be to "solve" this problem. I think we have kind of version, with packing list format version. I need to dig into this. I've only seen a little part of pkg_install actually. >>>Our nominal pkg_install maintainer is MIA at the moment. >> >> Ok, actually I knew eik has been working on it, but I didn't >> know who was the active maintainer now. > > > Last I heard, eik was the one working it, but no one has heard from him > in a while. He's been gone long enough that someone else could > certaintly commit to pkg_install given public review. > > >> I have thought of a new purge command, that would act like >> dpkg --purge on Debian but AFAIK that would be impossible >> since it would need persistent package records (that still >> exists after a package has been removed as long as we have >> some configuration files for this port in the tree). > > > This would be a really cool feature. Off hand, you'd probably want to > create another dirctory under /var/db to store these records. That > would certaintly be allowed to support such a feature. I just wanted to add @conf feature because ports lacks some guidelines concerning how to handle configuration, where to put sample, and I needed that support in pkg_install before I can write my patch for bsd.port.mk. I'm quite interested in pkg_install, I think there could be a lot of interesting things to add. I'll probably try to add such a purge command later. -- Florent Thoumie flz@xbsd.org