PR ports/76915 fell through the cracks?

Kris Kennaway kris at
Sat Jun 3 13:59:34 PDT 2006

On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 03:49:42PM -0500, PauAmma wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Jun 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 10:45:23PM +0200, Ulrich Spoerlein wrote:
> >>PauAmma wrote:
> >>>
> >>>( for details)
> >>
> >>I didn't read the patch (yet) and I'm not familiar with the code, but if
> >>we would enforce all pkg-install/deinstall scripts to be sh(1) scripts,
> >>then it's simply a matter of replacing ./foo with 'sh foo', right?
> That would require changes to pkg_delete and related utilities, which 
> may actually be a good idea (see below).
> >And potentially many other similar changes.  The full scope of the
> >changes required to fully support a noexec /var is clearly enormous,
> >which is one reason why I don't want to add partial support for this
> >nonstandard and rarely-used configuration.
> IMO this wouldn't be supporting it strictly speaking, more along the lines 
> of not trying to and failing messily. That said, I'm beginning to think 
> that if this specific problem should be fixed at all, the fix needs to go 
> in pkg_delete and friends, not the ports system itself:
> 1- This would address the performance concerns Sergey Matveychuk raised.
> 2- The same problem happens when using pkg_delete -f directly.
> Considering the above, and so I don't embark onto something else that only 
> I care about, where would you suggest I ask before I start?
> (Oh, and since this is no longer ports-related, you can probably close the 
> PR unless you think someone may want to revisit it later.)

Personally I don't think it is worth attempting to handle, as I
mentioned previously.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list