[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: [HEADS UP] PKGTOOLS_REQD bump and related changes
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 06:09:31PM -0700, John Nemeth wrote:
> 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?
I'm not sure how that gels with Joerg's statement above:
"It is silently ignored. The edge cases where it doesn't work
are small enough that I don't think a warning is justified."
If things fail safe, then I wouldn't worry. They obviously don't, though.
Why does it hurt anyone to print out an informative message about what is
The worrying thing is the bit that has been deleted where we seem to have
migrated into a lower-case world, and suggestions on how to drag ourselves
out of the mire are dismissed as a "one-time change". Thomas has printed
out one case where it won't work at all.
Come on, folks, this isn't difficult - have some consideration for users,
Main Index |
Thread Index |