Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 00:59:50 +0200 From: Olli Hauer <ohauer@FreeBSD.org> To: utisoft@gmail.com Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Propose new macro: INSTALL_CONF Message-ID: <4DD05AE6.8070005@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinQh3GEQ7mYUd4ApNwYs%2B95=xsUiQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <BANLkTimYjuzp%2BV%2Bpi4bpOUv=uwe9UqjmGA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTikRxcqbvhyyryxyvt__4eeFSa-siQ@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=ngB4iayhSB5rUziXH=iBPt0Nn1w@mail.gmail.com> <4DD0444B.7040600@gmx.de> <BANLkTinQh3GEQ7mYUd4ApNwYs%2B95=xsUiQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2011-05-16 00:12, Chris Rees wrote:
> On 15 May 2011 22:23, olli hauer <ohauer@gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 2011-05-15 22:56, Chris Rees wrote:
>>> On 14 May 2011 18:32, Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 14 May 2011 16:39, Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm getting frustrated with editing config files of ports in vi, and
>>>>> being told it's read-only.
>>>>>
>>>>> This stops me using ZZ to quit, which makes me sad.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's also inconsistent with src/etc/Makefile which uses for example:
>>>>>
>>>>> .if ${MK_OPENSSH} != "no"
>>>>> cd ${.CURDIR}; ${INSTALL} -o ${BINOWN} -g ${BINGRP} -m 644 \
>>>>> ${SSH} ${DESTDIR}/etc/ssh
>>>>> .endif
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem stems from installing .sample files as DATA, and then using
>>>>> cp -p preserving the -w bits --> 444 makes perfect sense for a .sample file,
>>>>> but not at all for a config file.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have two options proposed.
>>>>>
>>>>> For both introduce CONFMODE into src/share/mk/bsd.own.mk, patch for
>>>>> which is at [1].
>>>>>
>>>>> Option 1: Rewrite the Porter's Handbook section on config files to use
>>>>> a macro involving CONFMODE instead of cp -p, which gets complicated
>>>>> when using with @exec in pkg-plist
>>>>>
>>>>> Option 2: Create an INSTALL_CONF macro, which handles the .conf.sample
>>>>> -> .conf automagically and sticks the right lines into TMPPLIST.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm swinging towards Option 2, but I haven't written the code for that
>>>>> yet in case someone shoots me down :P
>>>>>
>>>>> Any concerns about inconsistencies between the INSTALL_* macros could
>>>>> be addressed by calling it something different; I'm open to
>>>>> suggestions!
>>>>>
>>>>> We'd also need to deal with the MFC and subsequent updates of bsd.own.mk...
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] http://www.bayofrum.net/~crees/patches/bsd-own-mk-confmode.patch
>>>>
>>>> A third option has occurred to me:
>>>>
>>>> Create a new variable USE_CONF_FILES to work in a similar vein to USE_RC_SUBR...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, I've fleshed this out with some real code.
>>>
>>> New variables: CONF_FILES and CONF_DIRS.
>>>
>>> CONF_FILES is like *_DEPENDS as a colon-separated field:
>>>
>>> CONF_FILES= absolute_path_to_source_file:prefix_relative_path_to_target_file
>>>
>>> CONF_DIRS= dirs to add with @dirrmtry behaviour, in correct order.
>>>
>>> Of course, CONF_FILES clashes with some other ports, so before
>>> importing this we'd need to shift those aside / choose a different
>>> name for this variable.
>>>
>>>
>>> Patch to bsd.port.mk at [1], and a sample patch to net/opentracker [2]
>>> with syntax.
>>>
>>> Try it out with ${FAVOURITE_PORT}!
>>>
>>> I also promise to document it (if approved) in the Porter's Handbook,
>>> code it into portlint and maintain the code as well as take flak from
>>> porters!
>>>
>>> Feedback very welcome.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hm, until now I just overwrite the mode during install
>> ${INSTALL} or ${INSTALL_DATA} -m 644
>
> Is this the Right Thing though, or a hack around missing code? You've
> just hardcoded a mode in that people might not like.
It is a hack to overcome the 444 mode and I used it only for some config files
> Also, do you install the .sample like that, or do you use it to copy
> the .sample to the actual config file? .sample files shouldn't be +w.
It depends, how the files are installed.
Some ports install everything with the scripts in the source
(example: nagios/postfix ...) the only way is to patch this scripts
and install/copy later the .sample to a .config if .config does not exist.
Some will be installed by ${COPYTREE_SHARE} or other methods since
they have a lot of files.
In post-install now the trick is to lookup if there is already a
.conf file before overwriting with the .sample which makes users
unhappy if you destroy a existing config.
> What do you put in pkg-plist?
pkg-plist example
> @unexec if [ -f %D/etc/PortName.conf ] && cmp -s %D/etc/PortName.conf %D/etc/PortName.conf-sample; then rm -f %D/etc/PortName.conf; fi
> etc/PortName.conf-sample
> @exec if [ ! -f %D/etc/PortName.conf ] ; then cp -p %D/%F %B/PortName.conf; fi
The filemode is preserved, no need for pkg-install script
But there are situations I don't like for example if a port has
full write access to www/PortName since the maintainer decide to
do a chown www:www %%WWWDIR%%
Example solution: net-mgmt/nagvis/files/pkg-install.in
>> and for sensitive config files
>> ${INSTALL} or ${INSTALL_DATA} -m 640 -o ... -g ...
>
>> For config dirs (in the Makefile)
>> PLIST_DIRSTRY= %%ETCDIR%%
>
> This I'll concede!
>
>> This seems easier to me.
>
> It certainly doesn't seem easier to me; instead of:
>
> CONF_FILES= source:dest
>
> you still have to have a post-install bit, an @exec line in pkg-plist
> with weird hieroglyphs, and an @unexec line _for each config file
> installed_
>
> Can anyone explain why we bend over backwards to make ports
> DATADIR-safe for example but completely ignore the user's preferences
> with config files???
No, I cannot explain but those macros are also used for a long time
in the auto-scripts (autoconf/automake)
> I just don't understand how the priority lies here.
>
> Chris
If I find the time I will test your patch with some ports
to get a feeling for it.
olli
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4DD05AE6.8070005>