Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:15:28 -0500 From: Paul Chvostek <paul+fbsd@it.ca> To: Sergey Matveychuk <sem@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/75018: [maintainer update]: net-mgmt/rotorouter was missing a file from its plist... Message-ID: <20041214211528.GC74668@it.ca> In-Reply-To: <41BE4CAA.9000208@FreeBSD.org> References: <41BE4CAA.9000208@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--FL5UXtIhxfXey3p5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 05:15:06AM +0300, Sergey Matveychuk wrote: > > I don't think it's a good idea to remove conf file this way. > > Use something like this instead: > @unexec if cmp -s %D/etc/rotorouter.conf %D/etc/rotorouter.conf-example; > then rm -f %D/etc/rotorouter.conf; fi Agreed, that's more consistent with what other ports are doing. I've attached a replacement diff against the original port. But ... While this is indeed consistent with how other ports work, it brings up a philosophical question. Should port behaviour upon uninstall be controlled by the port, or by the ports system itself? By simply including the conf file in the +CONTENTS, without this @unexec, a `pkg_delete` will remove the package but leave an altered conf file, while `make deinstall` will remove the conf file as well. Both will display a warning about the MD5 not matching, and neither will return an error, whatever happens. Could this be improved? I think so. (I'm CCing ports@ for discussion.) So ... we have a "convention" amongst other ports of comparing config files against their "-dist" or "-example" counterparts. Should this behaviour be made standard? Perhaps a variable in the Makefile (i.e. SAVEFILES or DO_NOT_DELETE) that contains a list of prefix-less files that should kept rather than deleted if their MD5 is wrong? For basic implementation of this, we wouldn't need to change the pkg_* tools; the existence of the file in the variable could cause bsd.port.mk to generate exactly the @unexec you've recommended above. Unless of course we wanted some kind of override option that would let us say "ya, delete the bugger, I don't care." Is there any merit to any of this, or should folks installing ports just be able to clean up after themselves? p -- Paul Chvostek <paul@it.ca> Operations / Abuse / Whatever it.canada, hosting and development http://www.it.ca/ --FL5UXtIhxfXey3p5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="rotorouter-1.0_1.diff-2" diff -ruN /usr/ports/net-mgmt/rotorouter/pkg-plist rotorouter/pkg-plist --- /usr/ports/net-mgmt/rotorouter/pkg-plist Mon Jun 14 13:56:41 2004 +++ rotorouter/pkg-plist Tue Dec 14 16:11:03 2004 @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ sbin/rotorouter etc/rc.d/rotorouter.sh etc/rotorouter.conf-example +@unexec if cmp -s %D/etc/rotorouter.conf %D/etc/rotorouter.conf-example; then rm -f %D/etc/rotorouter.conf; fi --FL5UXtIhxfXey3p5--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041214211528.GC74668>