From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 19 21:35:47 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7969B1065670; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:35:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wxs@atarininja.org) Received: from syn.atarininja.org (syn.csh.rit.edu [129.21.50.215]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52D318FC12; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:35:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by syn.atarininja.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 6F55E5C3E; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:35:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:35:46 -0500 From: Wesley Shields To: Doug Barton Message-ID: <20100119213546.GD54096@atarininja.org> References: <4B54D17E.8000508@FreeBSD.org> <4B550975.8090800@p6m7g8.com> <4B550C9E.6040303@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B550C9E.6040303@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: "Philip M. Gollucci" , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why change to plist-sub for pkg-message? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:35:47 -0000 On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 05:36:30PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: > On 01/18/10 17:23, Philip M. Gollucci wrote: > > That particular one is questionable, but I'm sure if every post-install > > message is in pkg-message or files/pkg-message.in it will help with > > > > > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/122877 > > Ok, now I see where you're going with this. :) With respect to Wesley, > the approach in the patch is bass-ackwards. You don't want to do > anything with files named *pkg*message*, there are just too many > variations. The only thing you want to worry about is > /var/db/pkg/*/+DISPLAY. That way you can be sure of several useful > things ... it's persistent (I.e., users can bring it up again with > pkg_info), it's already post-processed, etc. etc. Wow, that's a patch from the past. ;) You are correct that there are too many variations, not to mention my patch failed to handle the case where a port is installed as an EXTRACT_DEPENDS. That is part of the reason that the PR is in limbo - it clearly needs more work. I would love to find time to clean it up because I still think the feature is useful. Thanks for the hint on using +DISPLAY for this. If I can ever find the time to re-work the patch I will certainly explore that option. > Modesty aside portmaster has some pretty mature code to deal with this, > I suggest giving it a look before trying to reinvent it. I love the fact that portmaster does this and will look at the code if I can find time to re-work the patch. If anyone wants to get to it first then please do. I'm willing to give a review and pointers to some of the pitfalls I've noticed with my original approach. > As for the rest of the patch, I appreciate the POLA-awareness, but I > would make this opt-OUT instead of opt-in, tool authors can easily opt > out of it with a one-line fix, whereas the feature is very useful for > the average user and I believe it should be enabled by default. It's one > of the things that people tell me most often that they like about > portmaster. Point taken. I chose to not break POLA but can see your viewpoint also. As is often the case with these situations I'm agnostic and leave it up to the powers-that-be (portmgr) to decide on that. -- WXS