Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2021 12:15:14 +0000 (UTC) From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Matthias Andree <mandree@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports-committers@FreeBSD.org, dev-commits-ports-all@FreeBSD.org, dev-commits-ports-main@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: git: 54b26298c822 - main - sysutils/e2fsprogs: port rework Message-ID: <0623d651-481a-40ad-ba16-d3669e8f98d1@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <7ab4796b-9694-4865-9fe9-c5343fa8c29a@FreeBSD.org> References: <202108042123.174LNOj4042456@gitrepo.freebsd.org> <93738b88-4f35-4e56-b220-25026f9cd62f@FreeBSD.org> <5a41362f-7d8c-695f-c851-027e0996a8c2@FreeBSD.org> <90ce366f-fc72-4a74-81c6-4f23907c3f7d@FreeBSD.org> <7ab4796b-9694-4865-9fe9-c5343fa8c29a@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
7 ao=C3=BBt 2021 10:28:05 Matthias Andree <mandree@FreeBSD.org>: > Am 07.08.21 um 08:41 schrieb Baptiste Daroussin: > >>> * pkg seems to lack, or I am unaware, of a way to modify the install >>> before recording files and checksums. >> >> Because this is not how packaging is supposed to work in the first place= ! > > We're doing it all the time =3D> @sample, @postexec, whatnot. > >>> * The current commit to e2fsprogs forgoes the need to do just that, the >>> price we pay is "absolute symlinks" from $PREFIX/sbin to /sbin.=C2=A0 I= 've >>> removed the replace-by-hardlinks stuff from pkg-install. >>> >> >> I am questionning the need to do it since the beginning this is this nee= d which is the problem > >>> * installing into /sbin and $PREFIX/... at the same time is something >>> that the port has been doing for ages, but feel free to send me a patch >>> for review that splits it into one e2fsprogs port that installs only >>> into / [/sbin] and RUN_DEPENDS on a separate e2fsprogs-bin port, or we >>> can revisit this once we have subpackages and pkg grows a >>> hardlink-or-copy or a hardlink-or-symlink feature that does not cause >>> apparent checksum mismatches in the database. >>> >>> * as long as the kernel supports ext2fs we need to be able to fsck so w= e >>> don't create circular dependencies that wedge the boot process. >> >> There is no such circular dependency, the boot will never get blocked on= fsck on ext2fs, it can only be blocked if the root fs is on ext2 which mak= e no sense on freebsd. None of the other filesystem tools are doing that! > > There is no enforced file system layout and it's perfectly legit to let > $PREFIX or /usr (not /) reside on ext2, ext3 or ext4.=C2=A0 It may seem l= ess > prevalent today with fallen prices for storage over the decades, but > it's a use case we need to care for. > > Trust the maintainer who also sees non-public mail for his package. > Authority argument which is unverifiable... Please provide an real actual u= se case which requires those to be in /sbin. The only one that was provided= does not actually works on freebsd >>> * you can't run pkg check from within a post-install shell script. >>> Haven't tried Lua. For shell scripts, I explored stuffing a script into >>> at(1) which worked with an up-to-5 minute delay to recalculate >> >> At works but it is ugly > > Function comes before beauty. > >>> checksums, daemon(8) would probably have been another option I did not = try. >> >> No, pkg would have killed it because it becomes the reaper when executin= g scripts and kills all its child exactly to prevent such things. > > I'll try that at some point. If daemon(8) (without options to > synchronize to the invoking shell) were to not reparent itself or its > children ultimately to init(8), then its detaching would be incomplete. > > A simple "daemon sleep 100" shows sleep with its own PID and PPID 1, as > I expect. It does not if launched from pkg which is the reaper for the scripts it doe= s launch Bapt
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0623d651-481a-40ad-ba16-d3669e8f98d1>