From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 4 19:13:32 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF73616A4CE; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 19:13:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from gate.xbsd.org (xbsd.org [82.233.2.192]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1CA343D31; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 19:13:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from flz@xbsd.org) Received: from localhost (localhost.xbsd.org [127.0.0.1]) by gate.xbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B20F21195E; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 20:15:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from gate.xbsd.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (gate.xbsd.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 26295-02; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 20:15:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.42.2] (gatecrasher.xbsd.org [192.168.42.2]) by gate.xbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1925811870; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 20:15:34 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4203C942.5010506@xbsd.org> Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 20:13:06 +0100 From: Florent Thoumie User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050131) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brooks Davis References: <200502032350.j13NoKLF045837@freefall.freebsd.org> <42039BAA.2070900@xbsd.org> <20050204183546.GA5389@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <4203C1D9.5090108@xbsd.org> <20050204190457.GB5389@odin.ac.hmc.edu> In-Reply-To: <20050204190457.GB5389@odin.ac.hmc.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at xbsd.org cc: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org cc: hq@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bin/77082: src/usr.sbin/pkg_install - Add 3 new macros to clean pkg-plist X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 19:13:32 -0000 Brooks Davis wrote: > On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 07:41:29PM +0100, Florent Thoumie wrote: > >>Brooks Davis wrote: >> >> >>>It seems like dirrmtry should take an optional message to emit if the >>>event that the directory can not be delete. That way the user can be >>>informed that the directory should be removed if they are really done >>>using the port. >> >> I asked myself if I should put this feature in my patch and >> I finally haven't because it required some extra-stuff >> (handling optional arguments for @ commands is painful), and a >> simple '@unexec [ -d ${PREFIX}/etc ] && echo ...' is easier I >> guess. But that's no problem for me to include that if everybody >> thinks it worth it. > > > Given this workaround, it's probably not a high priority to add this. > Hmm, what about a seperate @echoifexists or similar command? I have nothing against that. The command above sounded really simple to me that it wouldn't need a separate @ command. But why not. >>>Have you thought about how to solve the boot strapping problems with >>>pkg_install/pkg_delete? >> >> I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, I started >> looking at pkg_install source yesterday at night. Could you >> give me some pointers about that ? > > > The issue is that you need to find a way to keep users from installing > packages they can't uninstall. If you add new commands and they are > used in ports, users with older systems won't have the necessicary > pkg_delete commands to make them work. The current system doens't even > give a graceful way of detecting this condition both in the port and > when the users installs a pkg from the -stable collections online. > Longer term, we need some versioning in the plist and ports, but first > we've got to solve the problem we're stuck with now. Ok, what you meant is now clearer to me. I have no good idea of how this exactly works but IIRC i've seen sysutils/pkg_install whose job must be to "solve" this problem. I think we have kind of version, with packing list format version. I need to dig into this. I've only seen a little part of pkg_install actually. >>>Our nominal pkg_install maintainer is MIA at the moment. >> >> Ok, actually I knew eik has been working on it, but I didn't >> know who was the active maintainer now. > > > Last I heard, eik was the one working it, but no one has heard from him > in a while. He's been gone long enough that someone else could > certaintly commit to pkg_install given public review. > > >> I have thought of a new purge command, that would act like >> dpkg --purge on Debian but AFAIK that would be impossible >> since it would need persistent package records (that still >> exists after a package has been removed as long as we have >> some configuration files for this port in the tree). > > > This would be a really cool feature. Off hand, you'd probably want to > create another dirctory under /var/db to store these records. That > would certaintly be allowed to support such a feature. I just wanted to add @conf feature because ports lacks some guidelines concerning how to handle configuration, where to put sample, and I needed that support in pkg_install before I can write my patch for bsd.port.mk. I'm quite interested in pkg_install, I think there could be a lot of interesting things to add. I'll probably try to add such a purge command later. -- Florent Thoumie flz@xbsd.org