On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 10:13 PM Dewayne Geraghty < dewa...@heuristicsystems.com.au> wrote:
> On 26/04/2021 6:03 pm, Stefan Bethke wrote: > > But that still leaves pkg updating the ownership/mode of existing > directories as a surprise on updating a package. I think the "right" thing > here would be a kind of three-way merge between changes an updated package > brings in vs. changes the user has made on their system. > > Sometimes the right thing isn't easy ;) > > There are some cases where I explicitly assign ownership and more > restrictive modes to installed ports. Would "pkg add -I" prevent file > ownership/mode changes or just prevent the execution of installation > scripts... (hint for a flag to prevent file mode/ownership changes on > existing systems) > > I suspect Gleb's paradigm of a separate file to explicitly control file > attributes (after upgrades) is reasonable, but this is problematic and > negates the value of a packaging system. > It only shifts the task of organizing runtime files/dirs to the software upstream, which is a right thing, IMO. The same way we use automatic pkg-plist generation for Python easyinstall-based ports. That tmpfiles.d thing seems to be an established way to do that sort of stuff in the Linux world, so I believe we should get on the train too. _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"