Subject: Re: Refactoring "install" and "package" phases
To: Dieter Baron <>
From: Johnny Lam <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 05/22/2006 17:34:11
Dieter Baron wrote:
> In article <> 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 <>