HEADS UP: pkg-plist strict enforcement starting

[Edwin Groothuis]

On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 10:29:03PM +0100, Kirill Ponomarew wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 08:14:59AM +1100, Edwin Groothuis wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 01:08:36PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > > For the past month I've been sending warnings to maintainers of ports
> > > that have broken pkg-plists (i.e. leave behind files after
> > > deinstallation).  Now that we've passed the 4.11-RELEASE freeze, it's
> > > a good time to take this to the next level and begin phasing in strict
> > > enforcement of pkg-plist correctness.
> > 
> > Please have a look at ports/75379:
> > 	bsd.port.mk / add-plist-docs is too relaxed
> 
> Well, the problem described seems to be software specific and can be
> easily patched.  There are rare cases when described mess happens.

Yes, the same rare cases where the pkg-plist is messed up.

- If I miss one file in the pkg_plist, the port gets marked as
  broken because the pkg_delete complains about it.
- If I add one file too much to the PLIST_FILES, the port doesn't
  get marked as broken because the framework is too soft on it.

In that case I have a better plan: why not let the framework figure
out which files are installed, so that we don't need these horrible
pkg-plist files anymore?

Yes, bad idea.

How about we let the ports framework be strict on what it gets
configured (both with pkg-plist and PLIST_FILES/PLIST_DIRS) and
make sure we have told the framework exactly what we want it to
happen, and that the framework itself doesn't try to be friendly
to us.

Edwin

-- 
Edwin Groothuis      |            Personal website: http://www.mavetju.org
edwin at mavetju.org    |          Weblog: http://weblog.barnet.com.au/edwin/