From owner-freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org Tue Apr 5 10:28:55 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pkg@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42749B03F87 for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 10:28:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from zsolt.ero@gmail.com) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 259351E61 for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 10:28:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from zsolt.ero@gmail.com) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 213A7B03F85; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 10:28:55 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: pkg@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20E3AB03F84 for ; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 10:28:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from zsolt.ero@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ig0-x235.google.com (mail-ig0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E27121E60; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 10:28:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from zsolt.ero@gmail.com) Received: by mail-ig0-x235.google.com with SMTP id kb1so15421305igb.0; Tue, 05 Apr 2016 03:28:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Q94djQhg9k+cCd/MKn3xNcXAmp3i7TbpZgRNaq8zHrc=; b=erQcBD5V3GJRyky2josRZbBARAXmWDuRHKDgcaE1lVYrmveU4nc/5yfJ1SkkTxyILO rD2WApbxHOYlJpkYS+DqI326eax46BNpLUM1GceSkcKyrPc94KBIv+xVAkdhcjZmtKSH q9h0nKbMmO2x1Mn88PZ/b/gFYZMy1vmRyfHycxZx5tc8A8ec4fkcX/x1iw+CvGe4kz2V y5gZPLw2HAKIMvhnqRd6p3UEmltc27i1wv3P5HQb1mD3L7fUvfmtB8JLh8J9HTU0lCMj H9fuSwX/mQyt3utWbZgw1wvTYI+aS6n+dEgbbGPENggYePIKG1vlRLQn2ClUuotkV7/5 t/HA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Q94djQhg9k+cCd/MKn3xNcXAmp3i7TbpZgRNaq8zHrc=; b=cXkLzrK4Dj+G/LRwF3zpKWZn8sXGs0DlIsrllU/KMG4s9TaeOiIiQgVJVyq5NjIOkc n09SWNgCqgY7mFKPgzSY8FCpC1cJMNmwDMR7NWAbL55h6i5hyaiBaPj7ErYZF7yehqgp YSJCm71r+QSS133E6DZ4htqsrs0OopMZLYsnvoEr7E1kBdaPmrLMJ7OGuT1nCgIcUNhH G5XrdenwlJaDSHXgkeYVrDx3zVALYnjxYgGkVty9hKbgboXdZ4q0ubSeVTNZM2n3soJv kjWuz+av1OLzTNkL9ssHAvoPQuXj+67nRYugRugu/hTg0Kp7gmGwgoJe9Jh/44xUhW5b wJ7w== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJILRud0/gUJ826tmV/MoQEavuuEiRDqQtSO8rqW4tuC4wn6IiE/k/GL//Hz0qMdGXllvjZlQIuCK61T/g== X-Received: by 10.50.132.102 with SMTP id ot6mr14058469igb.97.1459852134301; Tue, 05 Apr 2016 03:28:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.46.165 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 03:28:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20160405034626.GA1875@corpmail.liquidneon.com> References: <20160405034626.GA1875@corpmail.liquidneon.com> From: Zsolt Ero Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 12:28:14 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: ports-mgmt/pkg To: Brad Davis Cc: pkg@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-BeenThere: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: Binary package management and package tools discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2016 10:28:55 -0000 I don't know how those tools internally check the state of packages, but anyone who self manages a server usually writes a long line of "pkg install -y pkg1 pkg2 pkg3" in a script. I would think that 99% of server deployment scripts are structured like this. Those lines are used in the sense of "make sure that pkg1, pkg2 and pkg3 are all installed after this command". Now the new change totally breaks this behaviour. Also, it breaks convention with known package managers from OS X or the linux world, where ... install is usually used as "make sure that ... is installed". Even if FreeBSD believes that such a huge change is somehow justified at a minor point release, it should be clearly communicated with the community. I would strongly recommend going back to the pre-1.7 way of "make sure that ... is installed" behaviour. Since this is such a fresh change, I believe there will be many more user reports coming in from broken install scripts soon. Zsolt On 5 April 2016 at 05:46, Brad Davis wrote: > On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 02:20:49AM +0200, Zsolt Ero wrote: >> Hi, >> >> There is quite a serious regression in pkg 1.7.1: pkg install fails >> with error code 70 if any of the listed packages is already installed. > > Most tools like Puppet, Salt Stack, etc look at the output of `pkg list`. > What tool are you using? > > I don't think this is a regression at all. pkg was not able to install > something, thus it should exit with a proper error code. > > > Regards, > Brad Davis >