Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:35:46 -0500 From: Wesley Shields <wxs@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "Philip M. Gollucci" <pgollucci@p6m7g8.com>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why change to plist-sub for pkg-message? Message-ID: <20100119213546.GD54096@atarininja.org> In-Reply-To: <4B550C9E.6040303@FreeBSD.org> References: <4B54D17E.8000508@FreeBSD.org> <4B550975.8090800@p6m7g8.com> <4B550C9E.6040303@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 05:36:30PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: > On 01/18/10 17:23, Philip M. Gollucci wrote: > > That particular one is questionable, but I'm sure if every post-install > > message is in pkg-message or files/pkg-message.in it will help with > > > > > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/122877 > > Ok, now I see where you're going with this. :) With respect to Wesley, > the approach in the patch is bass-ackwards. You don't want to do > anything with files named *pkg*message*, there are just too many > variations. The only thing you want to worry about is > /var/db/pkg/*/+DISPLAY. That way you can be sure of several useful > things ... it's persistent (I.e., users can bring it up again with > pkg_info), it's already post-processed, etc. etc. Wow, that's a patch from the past. ;) You are correct that there are too many variations, not to mention my patch failed to handle the case where a port is installed as an EXTRACT_DEPENDS. That is part of the reason that the PR is in limbo - it clearly needs more work. I would love to find time to clean it up because I still think the feature is useful. Thanks for the hint on using +DISPLAY for this. If I can ever find the time to re-work the patch I will certainly explore that option. > Modesty aside portmaster has some pretty mature code to deal with this, > I suggest giving it a look before trying to reinvent it. I love the fact that portmaster does this and will look at the code if I can find time to re-work the patch. If anyone wants to get to it first then please do. I'm willing to give a review and pointers to some of the pitfalls I've noticed with my original approach. > As for the rest of the patch, I appreciate the POLA-awareness, but I > would make this opt-OUT instead of opt-in, tool authors can easily opt > out of it with a one-line fix, whereas the feature is very useful for > the average user and I believe it should be enabled by default. It's one > of the things that people tell me most often that they like about > portmaster. Point taken. I chose to not break POLA but can see your viewpoint also. As is often the case with these situations I'm agnostic and leave it up to the powers-that-be (portmgr) to decide on that. -- WXS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100119213546.GD54096>