again, ports that stop daemons

[Baptiste Daroussin]

On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 01:25:25PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 12/09/2011 13:18, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 01:09:09AM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> >> on 02/12/2011 21:55 Baptiste Daroussin said the following:
> >>> On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 08:38:05PM +0100, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Andriy Gapon <avg at freebsd.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Or that they simply quit doing that and instead print a message like "Port X is
> >>>>> deinstalled but it may have some processes running, please do Y and/or Z to find
> >>>>> them and/or stop them".
> >>>>
> >>>> I prefer this suggestion.
> >>>
> >>> I also would prefer this.
> >>
> >>
> >> BTW, this part of my suggestion was inspired by the following:
> >> http://en.opensuse.org/SDB:Zypper_usage_11.3#Check_processes
> >>
> >> Not sure how that feature is implemented though.
> >>
> > FYI, since a few minutes, pkgng handle rc scripts, disabled by default because I
> > still consider this feature dangerous.
> > to activate it is:
> > HANDLE_RC_SCRIPTS=yes in pkg.conf
> 
> I previously described what I thought was a pretty good way to handle
> this question that addressed the needs expressed by all of the posters
> on the previous thread, but my suggestion didn't get any responses.
> Since this has come up again, it would be helpful (to me at least) if
> people would think about my idea, and if nothing else tell me why I'm
> wrong. :)

And I previously read what you already said, but thanks, for providing your
opinion again that help to see how our implementation matches user idea
> 
> Quoting:
> 
> Speaking only for myself I hate the idea of stopping/starting services
> automatically. However this feature is often requested, and is something
> that is provided by many other package systems. If we have people who
> are willing to do the work I think it's worth discussing how to do it
> properly.

Completly agree that is why it is also deactivated by default.

> 
> The way that I envision it working
> would be a 3-knob system. One knob to always restart the services, one
> to never do it; and then asking on a per-port basis, which should be the
> default. I can imagine portmaster detecting this option in the pre-build
> phase similarly to how it detects and warns about IS_INTERACTIVE now,
> and giving the user a menu of options for how to handle it. I'm happy to
> add more details if people are interested.
> 
> Where this actually becomes interesting is not in the ports
> build/install process, which is pretty easy to deal with, but with
> package installs/deinstalls. I definitely think it's doable, what we
> probably want to do is put a knob for this in the port's Makefile, and
> handle the stop/start for both the port and the package with a little
> script that can be included in the package, and run with @exec and @unexec.
> 

I really do think this a package management feature, not a port feature, the way
this is now done, in pkgng is mostly what you have says, except for the
interactive one. the way it is handle in pkgng can work both for binary package
and for source upgrade (here goes portmaster :)) transparently, it will handle
all the rc scripts without forgetting one, not relying on what can be set or
forgotten by the maintainer.

I hate interactive packages, that is why I didn't add the interactive way, but
patches are welcome to add interactive rc script management in pkgng :).

regards,
Bapt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20111209/c64d8d12/attachment-0001.pgp