On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 06:10:56PM +0200, Antoine Jacoutot wrote: > On Thu, 19 May 2011, Mikolaj Kucharski wrote: > > > Ofcourse it's not recorded, as why you would need to '@unexec rm -f' it > > in the first place? I know this part. > > You may know this part but you certainly didn't make it obvious in your > former mail. > > > What I didn't wrote is to create empty file at post-install and then > > Ah. It was not obvious because you forgot to write stuffs. > > > register/mark it with '@comment no checksum'. Personally I would like > > another marker in pkg_create(1) which would, next to 'no checksum' said, > > 'missing ok', so post-install touch(1) wouldn't be needed at all. > > I don"t understand this part.
What I'm proposing above is @extra marker which doesn't require -c option to pkg_delete. > > Additional command(s) during post-install are not appealing to me, but I > > like it more than '@unexec rm -f' or '@unexec-delete rm -f' or whatnot > > solution. > > Why? Because it involves to much thinking. Commit from which I started this thread IMHO confirms that. It was done one way, and it turns out that removal needs to be done different way. Unexperienced porter may have difficulties to get that right. And I think (new) marker simmilar to '@extra' is simple enough to grasp it. File is not registered, so pkg_info -E will not find it. I like the idea that all (well ok, most) files are registered in /var/db/pkg database. It's cheaper than '@unexec-delete' or '@unexec' as delete wouldn't require to run external command for it, and if file did not change location (path) in PLIST you skip unnecessary execs of rm(1). For example for those GTK/GNOME themes, currently you install a theme, cache is created. Then update the theme, you remove the cache just to re-create them again a moment later. -- best regards q#
