On 2 Sep 2010, at 6:18, John Nemeth wrote:
> } No, that's wrong. They are not only in the destdir, they are installed
> } on a lot of systems and need to be removed. The instructions for the
>
> I doubt it was on "a lot of systems", it was probably only a few.
My NetBSD-current system had npf.conf(8) installed and it didn't get
purged before I fixed the set lists.
> } It doesn't matter that "it was only a few days". There is a well defined
>
> It was two days and five hours.
That is plenty for the getting the file installed on a lot of
NetBSD-current system.
>
> } way how to handle renaming files. If people use it The Right Thing(TM)
> } happens.
>
> I am well aware of what "The Right Thing(TM)" is. However, for
> such a short time period I would argue for simply removing the
> entries.
Why?
> Otherwise you get entries that are only useful to a handful
> of people that clutter up the lists until the end of time.
It is much better to "clutter up the lists" then to clutter up
a NetBSD installation.
> Removing obsolete files is one of the most time consuming parts of
> postinstall.
And running "postinstall" is the least time consuming part of updating
NetBSD-current on my system. Extracting the sets takes much longer,
not to mention building the sets in the first place.
> I have no problems with adding things to the list when it is necessary,
> but this was borderline.
I disagree.
> BTW, the same issue pops up when a library version is bumped since
> the old versions are deliberately not added to the obsolete lists so
> that they don't get removed from systems that are being upgraded. This
> means that you have to be prepared to deal with the occassional failure
> of this nature when doing update builds anyways.
I'm aware of this case. But in this case there is a good reason. And I'm
less concerned about the destdir anyway. I'm concerned about obsolete
manual pages remaining on a system.
Kind regards
--
Matthias Scheler http://zhadum.org.uk/
