From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 14 11:01:33 2005 Return-Path: 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 5A96316A4CE for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:01:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.bitdefender.com (ns.bitdefender.com [217.156.83.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E806243D1F for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:01:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from apircalabu@bitdefender.com) Received: (qmail 29520 invoked from network); 14 Jan 2005 11:01:30 -0000 Received: from apircalabu.dsd.ro (10.10.15.22) by mail.dsd.ro with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 14 Jan 2005 11:01:28 -0000 Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:04:04 +0200 From: Adi Pircalabu To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20050114130404.250d6e26@apircalabu.dsd.ro> In-Reply-To: <20050113180504.GA26064@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20050113062739.GA28658@xor.obsecurity.org> <20050113180504.GA26064@xor.obsecurity.org> Organization: BitDefender X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 0.9.13 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.10) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BitDefender-SpamStamp: 1.1.2 036000040111AAAAAAE X-BitDefender-Scanner: Clean, Agent: BitDefender Qmail 1.6.1 on mail.bitdefender.com X-BitDefender-Spam: No (0) Subject: Re: HEADS UP: pkg-plist strict enforcement starting X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:01:33 -0000 On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:05:04 -0800 Kris Kennaway wrote: > I'm going to be careful about not allowing the "questionable" packages > to fall foul of the pkg-plist checking, until we decide one way or the > other whether they should be considered "broken". This is a tricky situation from my point of view. I'm following this thread with a lot of interest since I'll be managing a port which CAN NOT honor pkg-plist strict checking. Here are few details: - The configuration files are created and heavily modified at install time from .dist files, will be modified as needed and should not be deleted at uninstall - the configuration should be kept for a later upgrade. This will definitely break "make install deinstall" on the packages cluster, but the files are required since they must contain information about various modules and plugins of the port, and this information must be written through a daemon started at post-install. - The port uses several other files (plugins, modules) which will be updated from time to time. Also, new modules / plugins whose names could not be initially listed in pkg-plist may be added, as well as existing ones may be updated or even deleted. I do not know at this time what is the right way to handle the pkg-plist checking, but this topic definitely gives me a lot of headache :) Another relevant message you posted last month on freebsd-ports@: http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/htdig/freebsd-ports/2004-December/018607.html "It's an important requirement that doing 'make install deinstall' (alternatively pkg_add; pkg_delete) leaves the system in the same state it was before the 'install', and not leave behind random cruft in ${PREFIX}." >From the above mentioned point of view, the port I'll be maintaining has very few chances to get rid of IGNORE/BROKEN stamps. And, as you can easily imagine, this is not what I want :) Thank you -- Adrian Pircalabu Public KeyID = 0xF902393A -- This message was scanned for spam and viruses by BitDefender. For more information please visit http://www.bitdefender.com/