[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: [HEADS UP] PKGTOOLS_REQD bump and related changes
On Nov 5, 7:43pm, Alistair Crooks wrote:
} Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] PKGTOOLS_REQD bump and related changes
} On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:30:42PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
} > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 09:19:43PM +0100, Alistair Crooks wrote:
} > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 09:46:43PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
} > > >
} > > > before the freeze I have commmitted the following large scale changes.
} > > > This can result in some fallout, so be warned:
} > > >
} > > > (2) @dirrm
} > > >
} > > > pkg_delete is performing automatic pruning of directories now. Empty
} > > > directories in packages can be requested by @pkgdir in the PLIST and
} > > > will be considered. As some packages had quite a bit of magic related
} > > > to @dirrm entries, there might be some fallout. I am running a bulk
} > > > build now to identify those issues.
} > >
} > > Is the @dirrm directive not recognised any more, or is there an error or
} > > warning message attached?
} > It is silently ignored. The edge cases where it doesn't work are small
} > enough that I don't think a warning is justified.
} Ah, right, silent ignorance - not really a good policy at any time,
} and especially not when it comes to adding an old binary package.
} Forcing everyone to re-compile binary packages is a bit of a copout,
} isn't it?
As I understand it, in the new world order, empty directories are
automatically removed, thus making @dirrm superflouous. Since @dirrm
with current pkg_install is essentially a No-Op, what is the issue with
simply ignoring it?
}-- End of excerpt from Alistair Crooks
Main Index |
Thread Index |