From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 3 23:16:37 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D18D0B45 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 23:16:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 000.fbsd@quip.cz) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (elsa.codelab.cz [94.124.105.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79322D14 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 23:16:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F56528429; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 00:16:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (unknown [89.177.49.69]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6B58E28428; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 00:16:34 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <50E61151.4050801@quip.cz> Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 00:16:33 +0100 From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 Lightning/1.0b1 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: olli hauer Subject: Re: What is policy about auto-editing config files on port install / deinstall? References: <50E49A73.2070008@quip.cz> <50E5FCDA.80906@quip.cz> <50E601B0.9040008@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <50E601B0.9040008@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Scot Hetzel , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 23:16:37 -0000 olli hauer wrote: > The point is at the moment the port is uninstalled the port has no knowledge about the reason (uninstall permanent / reinstall / upgrade ) so the assumption is permanent. > > What I really don't get is users complaining about critical machines, special workflow and then thy do builds on that *critical* system with a script that can be interrupted by< fill in several reasons>. You totally missed the point. I didn't talk about critical machines, but about ports infrastructure doing wrong things. It doesn't matter if it is some home machine or some supercritical server in datacenter. The point is that port modifies configuration in a wrong way. > Have you ever thought about a tinderbox, poudriere or simmilar which builds customized packages all the time in a clean environment? > If the build is finished you have all the sort of buildlogs and can do an package upgrade in seconds on a prod machine ( it takes me 10min to update a hand full of machines ). Did you tried installing / deinstalling mod_xsendfile from package instead of these empty words? The behavior is very similar to installation from ports. Tinderbox, pourdrier or anything else doesn't change what I am talking about. It always ends with modified (non-working) httpd.conf. > After the upgrade all I have to do is for services like apache an "svn diff" and maybe an "svn revert httpd.conf" then fire my daemon_restart scrip and go to the next machine. So you are recommending home-grown tools to fix ports / packages wrong behavior. Really "nice" solution! Miroslav Lachman