--twz1s1Hj1O0rHoT0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 10:25:36PM +0000, Alistair Crooks wrote:
> I think the goal is correct, but my reasons are different to Johnny's.
> Mainly, I'd like to have a "packing list" that is exactly that - a
> list of files and directories.  No extra @exec or @unexec statements,
> which belong in the +INSTALL scripts.  This is for no other reason
> that aesthetics.  Aesthetics, and a need for the tools to lose some
> bloat in the pkg_add front, to get rid of the possibility of running
> something horrible unknowingly as root at installation or
> de-installation time, a separation of the +INSTALL work to the script
> and not the pkg_install tools.

i am not sure i follow the logic.  vast majority of @exec and @unexec
calls are just simple mkdirs or rmdirs, as opposed to INSTALL scripts
which contain things like adding/removing users, editing /etc/shells and
such.  and you still fear of "running something horrible unknowingly as
root at installation or de-installation time" within @exec and @unexec?

otoh, i agree that "packing list" should be just "packing list" and
nothing more.  i also think that user installation should not be
embedded in the packages themselves, they should just merely inform
pkg_install that they require such and such users to be present and be
done with it.  i think that our pkg tools are showing their age pretty
badly, their design lacks the features we need today and we are
offloading the tasks to INSTALL scripts and pkgsrc infrastructure --
the wrong place for them.

regards,

--=20
-- Lubomir Sedlacik <salo@{NetBSD,Xtrmntr,silcnet}.org>   --

--twz1s1Hj1O0rHoT0
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFDb98KiwjDDlS8cmMRAk7hAJ9SxQknit4y3/PjwxtV2rI8X/c6qwCcCQZC
ZYRdCaIY0d++PlWv66hEQ2M=
=wb/u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--twz1s1Hj1O0rHoT0--