HEADS UP: pkg-plist strict enforcement starting

[Adi Pircalabu]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:05:04 -0800
Kris Kennaway <kris at obsecurity.org> wrote:

> I'm going to be careful about not allowing the "questionable" packages
> to fall foul of the pkg-plist checking, until we decide one way or the
> other whether they should be considered "broken".

This is a tricky situation from my point of view. I'm following this
thread with a lot of interest since I'll be managing a port which CAN
NOT honor pkg-plist strict checking. Here are few details:

- The configuration files are created and heavily modified at install
time from .dist files, will be modified as needed and should not be
deleted at uninstall - the configuration should be kept for a later
upgrade. This will definitely break "make install deinstall" on the
packages cluster, but the files are required since they must contain
information about various modules and plugins of the port, and this
information must be written through a daemon started at post-install.
- The port uses several other files (plugins, modules) which will be
updated from time to time. Also, new modules / plugins whose names could
not be initially listed in pkg-plist may be added, as well as existing
ones may be updated or even deleted.

I do not know at this time what is the right way to handle the pkg-plist
checking, but this topic definitely gives me a lot of headache :)

Another relevant message you posted last month on freebsd-ports@:

http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/htdig/freebsd-ports/2004-December/018607.html
"It's an important requirement that doing 'make install deinstall'
(alternatively pkg_add; pkg_delete) leaves the system in the same
state it was before the 'install', and not leave behind random cruft
in ${PREFIX}."

>From the above mentioned point of view, the port I'll be maintaining has
very few chances to get rid of IGNORE/BROKEN stamps. And, as you can
easily imagine, this is not what I want :)
Thank you

-- 
Adrian Pircalabu

Public KeyID = 0xF902393A


-- 
This message was scanned for spam and viruses by BitDefender.
For more information please visit http://www.bitdefender.com/