Has anyone else noticed the following inconsistency?
Some packages have been having problems related to @exec and @unexec
statements and the %D sequence. I think this happens because
contrary to the pkg_create man page, it appears that %D is expanded
for @exec, but not for @unexec. (This seems to be a pkg_delete
bug, but I haven't been able to look in the FreeBSD CVS server to
figure out if/when @unexec last supported %D).
@exec needs an absolute pathname, and using %D fulfill this
requirement. @unexec commands take place in the directory specfied
by @cwd, so leaving off %D seems to be the easiest way for @unexec
to access paths that were set up by @exec.
To use an example from the database package:
@cwd /usr
...
npdatabase/dbcheck
...
@exec ln -sf %D/npdatabase/dbcheck %D/local/etc/rc.d/dbcheck.sh
@unexec rm -f local/etc/rc.d/dbcheck.sh
When the package is added:
- npdatabase/dbcheck is installed as /usr/npdatabase/dbcheck
- /usr/npdatabase/dbcheck is linked to /usr/local/etc/rc.d/dbcheck.sh
When the package is deleted:
- /usr/local/etc/rc.d/dbcheck.sh is removed
Both @exec and @unexec could use just absolute pathnames
(/usr/local/etc/rc.d/dbcheck.sh), but this would prevent
relocation of the package. It's not important at the moment,
but package relocation could be used in the future to help
generate system disk images on manufacturing stands without
disturbing the manufacturing machine's installed software.
Regards,
Romain Kang Disclaimer: I speak for myself alone,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] except when indicated otherwise.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
