From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 6 21:22:01 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58AB716A439 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2006 21:22:01 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bsam@ipt.ru) Received: from mail.ipt.ru (mail.ipt.ru [80.253.10.82]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 179AD43D66 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2006 21:21:51 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bsam@ipt.ru) Received: from stat.sem.ipt.ru ([192.168.12.1] helo=srv.sem.ipt.ru) by mail.ipt.ru with esmtp (Exim 4.54 (FreeBSD)) id 1FGN9K-000D6K-2k; Tue, 07 Mar 2006 00:21:50 +0300 Received: from bsam by srv.sem.ipt.ru with local (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1FGNAx-0008NZ-7l; Tue, 07 Mar 2006 00:23:31 +0300 To: Ion-Mihai Tetcu References: <61474466@srv.sem.ipt.ru> <20060306223259.3f2c6253@it.buh.tecnik93.com> From: Boris Samorodov Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 00:23:31 +0300 In-Reply-To: <20060306223259.3f2c6253@it.buh.tecnik93.com> (Ion-Mihai Tetcu's message of "Mon, 6 Mar 2006 22:32:59 +0200") Message-ID: <52516908@srv.sem.ipt.ru> User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: dirrmtry: shared directories and can, should or must use X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 21:22:01 -0000 On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 22:32:59 +0200 Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote: > On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 17:40:45 +0300 > Boris Samorodov wrote: > > At The Porters Handbook 7.2.1 Cleaning up empty directories we read > > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/plist-cleaning.html#PLIST-DIR-CLEANING > > > > "However, sometimes @dirrm will give you errors because other ports > > share the same directory. You can use @dirrmtry to remove only empty > > directories without warning." > > > > I don't quite understand the term "can" here. Is it supposed may, > > should or must use @dirrmtry? > Should. > > > And what about non-empty but shared directories? May, should or must > > we use @dirrmtry? > Should. From what I understand from your phrasing all 3 sentences are > equivalent. I mean "may" is only an advice, "should" is a strong recommendation and "must" -- there is no alternative. I.e. is it's up to maintainer to decide which form to use or he must use @dirrmtry. > The idea is that different ports install files in the same directories > (that are not part of mtree). The ONLY reason to use @dirrmtry is to > avoid "Unable to completely delete dir/x " type of warnings from > pkg-delete. But the Handbook uses a little bit another phrase: "to remove only empty directories". I understand so: if a port installs empty directory, it may use @dirrmtry. And I'm asking what if a port installs (creates) non-empty but shared directory? I personally think that a maintainer must use @dirrmtry for all shared (with other ports, but not those the port conflicts with) directories (whether empty or not). > Of course, using @dirrmtry instead of properly removing own installed > files is wrong. Sure. > > Is this command supposed to work only when building packages > > (i.e. at pointyhat) or is it intended to be useful at other > > servers/workstations (i.e. not to disturb administrators when > > upgrading their systems)? > In all cases, when either pkg-delete or make deinstall are used. Then one must use @dirrmtry. ;-) WBR -- Boris B. Samorodov, Research Engineer InPharmTech Co, http://www.ipt.ru Telephone & Internet Service Provider