[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Packages with manual post-installation steps should not be automatically installed
I feel that populating a freshly installed system using binary pkg_add
is annoying for the following reason:
There are a number of packages that, when installed, issue a message that
some manual checks or changes in the system are required to finish the
installation and have the package fully functional.
Examples are: dbus, fam, and hal.
Now, if you just enter 'pkt_add wine' and have not yet installed the above ones,
they are automatically installed, but obviosly in an incomplete state.
Unless you have a hardcopy of your terminal output, and carefully
process all these messages, the installation will not be properly finished.
And worse, some of these message cannot be recovered (except by
eg. 'hal' says
> The following files should be created for hal-0.5.11nb27:
> /etc/rc.d/hal (m=0755)
which is not shown by 'pkg_info -D hal'.
Many of these could, I suspect, be done without problems by the installation
A proper practice would clearly be to effectively disable automatic dependency
e.g. by always trying with 'pkg_add -n' first, install the missing dependency
in the same way (-n first), and repeat this step as often as necessary.
But this is not what was intended, I suppose.
My suggestion would be to have a flag for each package that requires
manual intervention after installation,
and only include dependencies automatically that are not flagged this way.
While I know that installation from source is preferred, and does not exhibit
this problem (because there is not automatic dependeny installation there,
I presume), that is a fairly long way to build up a useful system.
You may have correctly assumed that I am new with NetBSD and might have
missed some hints on this subject; but I did not find any neither in the
pkgsrc documentation (chapter 4.1.2 is rather short) nor elsewhere.
I am really confused, and hesitated some time to write this message,
as this seems to me a behaviour not according to the claimed high reliability
and transparency of NetBSD, that was the reason I am considering NetBSD.
What have I missed or misunderstood?
Rainer Glaschick, Paderborn, Germany
Main Index |
Thread Index |