ports/75018: [maintainer update]: net-mgmt/rotorouter was missing a file from its plist...

[Paul Chvostek]

The following reply was made to PR ports/75018; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Paul Chvostek <paul+fbsd at it.ca>
To: Sergey Matveychuk <sem at FreeBSD.org>
Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit at FreeBSD.org, ports at FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: ports/75018: [maintainer update]: net-mgmt/rotorouter was missing a file from its plist...
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 16:15:28 -0500

 --FL5UXtIhxfXey3p5
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
 Content-Disposition: inline
 
 On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 05:15:06AM +0300, Sergey Matveychuk wrote:
 > 
 > I don't think it's a good idea to remove conf file this way.
 > 
 > Use something like this instead:
 > @unexec if cmp -s %D/etc/rotorouter.conf %D/etc/rotorouter.conf-example; 
 > then rm -f %D/etc/rotorouter.conf; fi
 
 Agreed, that's more consistent with what other ports are doing.  I've
 attached a replacement diff against the original port.
 
 But ...
 
 While this is indeed consistent with how other ports work, it brings up
 a philosophical question.  Should port behaviour upon uninstall be
 controlled by the port, or by the ports system itself?
 
 By simply including the conf file in the +CONTENTS, without this
 @unexec, a `pkg_delete` will remove the package but leave an altered
 conf file, while `make deinstall` will remove the conf file as well.
 Both will display a warning about the MD5 not matching, and neither will
 return an error, whatever happens.
 
 Could this be improved?  I think so.  (I'm CCing ports@ for discussion.)
 
 So ... we have a "convention" amongst other ports of comparing config
 files against their "-dist" or "-example" counterparts.  Should this
 behaviour be made standard?  Perhaps a variable in the Makefile (i.e.
 SAVEFILES or DO_NOT_DELETE) that contains a list of prefix-less files
 that should kept rather than deleted if their MD5 is wrong?
 
 For basic implementation of this, we wouldn't need to change the pkg_*
 tools; the existence of the file in the variable could cause bsd.port.mk
 to generate exactly the @unexec you've recommended above.  Unless of
 course we wanted some kind of override option that would let us say "ya,
 delete the bugger, I don't care."
 
 Is there any merit to any of this, or should folks installing ports just
 be able to clean up after themselves?
 
 p
 
 -- 
   Paul Chvostek                                             <paul at it.ca>
   Operations / Abuse / Whatever
   it.canada, hosting and development                   http://www.it.ca/
 
 
 --FL5UXtIhxfXey3p5
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="rotorouter-1.0_1.diff-2"
 
 diff -ruN /usr/ports/net-mgmt/rotorouter/pkg-plist rotorouter/pkg-plist
 --- /usr/ports/net-mgmt/rotorouter/pkg-plist	Mon Jun 14 13:56:41 2004
 +++ rotorouter/pkg-plist	Tue Dec 14 16:11:03 2004
 @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
  sbin/rotorouter
  etc/rc.d/rotorouter.sh
  etc/rotorouter.conf-example
 + at unexec if cmp -s %D/etc/rotorouter.conf %D/etc/rotorouter.conf-example; then rm -f %D/etc/rotorouter.conf; fi
 
 --FL5UXtIhxfXey3p5--