Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- revised_pkg_install [2010/04/02 07:04] – EnjiCooper
+++ revised_pkg_install [2018/04/15 17:29] (current) – MarkLinimon
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+:!: MarkLinimon's note: work on this project seems to have stalled back in 2010.
 The goal of improving the package installation experience is multi-fold:
@@ Line 7: / Line 9: @@
     * For instance, add libarchive support to make pkg_install more responsive to failures, and thus reduce wasted time waiting for tar to complete, and also reduce the number of shell calls.
     * Add locking so that multiple copies of pkg_add / pkg_delete can be run in parallel, thus avoiding (or at the very least reducing) potential race conditions as far as modifying installed packages is concerned.
+    * Remove the custom Boolean data type with C99 standard ''%%bool%%'' (#include %%<%%stdbool.h>).
   - Write extensive tests so that we can ensure that the code makes functional sense; many BSD implementations sadly lack tests, and thus we can't be sure that the code actually meets requirements and reacts in meaningful ways.
@@ Line 28: / Line 31: @@
   * An idea that was kicked around before by jilles@ was a potential rewrite of pkg_install with a scripting language (of some flavor) as the top-level frontend, and then use a C backend to do the actual maintenance tasks. Take for instance apt vs dpkg, or yum vs rpm. This seems to be a good idea, but again -- requires some rewrites and fudging around.
   * pkg_install for instance has been completely rewritten (for the most part) in %%NetBSD%% to use a seemingly more logical structure: http://www.netbsd.org/gallery/presentations/joerg/eurobsdcon2006/pkg_install.html
+  * libpkg (started during the 2009 %%GSoC%%) takes advantage of libarchive and is another possibility for base: http://code.google.com/p/libpkg/
   * libpkg (which I was originally looking at for the 2007 %%GSoC%% and abandoned due to time) is another possibility for the base, but the project has been dead for over a year now (maybe because the code was contributed back to %%DragonflyBSD%%?): http://libpkg.berlios.de/
+====== Bugs ======
+  - pkg_delete -f needs fine tuning.
+    * -f should overwrite only the dependency checks
+    * an new option should be used for removing files which checksum does not match. - didn't reach consensus on this.
+    * "portupgrade" used "-f" and so a lot of user modified files get lost. make deinstall does too.
+  - pkg_add should by default skip already existing files, and override them only with an option similar to pkg_delete above.
 ====== Proposals for Phase 2 ======
+  - Replace @exec and @unexec for config.
+Packing lists are clobbered with lines like :
+@exec [ ! -f %B/foo ] && cp %B/%f %B/foo\\
+@unexec cmp -s %D/etc/foo %D/etc/foo-dist && rm %D/etc/foo\\
+@unexec rmdir %D/share/foo 2> /dev/null || true\\
+Suggestion by flz: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=bin/77082
+\\
+\\
+@cpin name : copy if non-existent, copy name from name-dist if name doesn't exist yet.\\
+@rmiu name : remove if unchanged, remove name if name and name-dist are no different.\\
+\\
+Maybe consider it with only on instruction:\\
+@config etc/foo etc/foo-dist\\
+\\
+Pkg_add will copy if non-existent "${PREFIX}/etc/foo-dist" to "${PREFIX}/etc/foo"\\
+Pkg_delete will remove "${PREFIX}/etc/foo" if unchanged from "${PREFIX}/etc/foo-dist"\\
+\\
+Support may be extened to have macros in bsd.port.mk:\\
+http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/75464
+\\
+\\
   - Replace @exec and @unexec with script infrastructure code and deprecate existing callers.
     * Need to produce prototype to demonstrate effectiveness of the following items:
-      - Quantifiable performance results stating statistically what the difference is on average processing plists without @exec and @unexec in the following cases, with the parsing code enabled and disabled. ii. Provide an implementation that makes absolute justifiable sense.
+      - Quantifiable performance results stating statistically what the difference is on average processing plists without @exec and @unexec in the following cases, with the parsing code enabled and disabled.
+      - Provide an implementation that makes absolute justifiable sense.
     * Need to write up an official proposal noting the change. Reference thread: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2010-March/060239.html (title: `[RFC] deprecate @exec and @unexec in plists in favor of pre-install and post-install scripts').
@@ Line 42: / Line 81: @@
     * Need to produce prototype to demonstrate effectiveness of the following items:
-      - Quantifiable performance results stating statistically what the difference between polymorphic packages and non-polymorphic packages. ii. Provide an implementation that makes absolute justifiable sense.
+      - Quantifiable performance results stating statistically what the difference between polymorphic packages and non-polymorphic packages.
+      - Provide an implementation that makes absolute justifiable sense.
     * Need to write up an official proposal noting the change.
 Reference thread: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2010-March/060367.html . Please see the rest of the thread for more details.
-Author's Page: [[GarrettCooper|Garrett Cooper]].
+Author's Page: [[NgieCooper|Ngie Cooper]].
+----
+{{tag>Stale}}