Subject: Re: /var/db/pkg
To: David Brownlee <email@example.com>
From: David Burgess <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/24/2000 13:35:21
1) Using pkg_info would be a HUGE win for me - it would solve dozens
of problems that I run into all the time. "pkg_info --short name" for
a short ("name.0.0.1"/"No it's not installed") answer, along
with a 1/0 (0/1?) exit code would be wonderful, and it would make the
conversion of the .mk file really easy.
2) I always use 'make reinstall' instead of 'make install'. It doesn't
work from subordinate packages, but it works OK for the main packages.
David Brownlee wrote:
> (ccing tech-pkg as its more relevant there)
> Is anyone strongly opposed to the concept of using pkg_info
> instead of .install_done? If not, are any of the proponents
> willing to come up with the appropriate diffs? :)
> -- www.netbsd.org: No hype required --
> On Mon, 22 May 2000, Martin Husemann wrote:
> > > The rest of the status files, like .build_done etc, are fine, it's
> > > just the .install_done that annoys me.
> > Me too! I got used to "rm work/.install done; make install" after building
> > the pkg on the fastest host in the NFS cloud, then installing it everywhere.
> > No, NFS sharing /usr/pkg is not an option here; there are (relatively) slow
> > remote connections and temporary ones involved.
> > Martin