Subject: Re: Refactoring "install" and "package" phases
To: Dieter Baron <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Johnny Lam <email@example.com>
Date: 05/22/2006 17:34:11
Dieter Baron wrote:
> In article <4471C1B8.firstname.lastname@example.org> Johnny wrote:
> : Yes, my approach is likely to be moving the +* scriptlets out of the
> : meta-data directory and into a separate location that is listed in the
> : PLISTs. The INSTALL and DEINSTALL scripts would then be much simpler.
> : Most of the package systems I've seen support some sort of
> : install/deinstall hook, and it will involve a custom wrapper around the
> : existing +* scriptlets. I believe that most of the existing
> : functionality provided by the pkginstall framework can be preserved.
> Please don't do this. I would strongly prefer if the +* scriplets
> weren't part of the individual packages at all. One of the strengths
> of pkgsrc is the declarative nature of the package Makefiles.
> I would like to see this reflected in the binary packages: The
> package should state what services it needs from the package install
> tools (create user foo, copy config file bar, ...) and leave the
> implementation to the tools. That way, we could fix bugs in the
> implantation without requiring all packages to be rebuilt.
> Also, a fix in one of the scripts could result in a version bump of
> the install tools, whereas it is impractical to bump the revision of
> all packages using it.
I'll figure out another way to do it to meet your requirements when I
experiment with actually adding the SVR4 package format support. I
believe the solution is fairly easy, so we'll not dwell on it here.
-- Johnny Lam <email@example.com>