Re: What do you wish for in an package manager?
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 03:40:21PM +0100, Laurent Martelli wrote:
> /usr/doc - /usr/share/doc transition problems are one consequence of
> this. If files were tagged according to some high level criterions, it
> would be easier to put change the physical location during
> installation. Setting the path in the package is bad idea from that
> point of view.
> I think that installation scripts should be rather declaratives : in
> fact they should not be scripts. It would avoid security problems
> because of badly written scripts, and allow easier extensibility by
> simply interpreting the declarations in a different way, rather than
> having to rewrite all the scripts of all packages.
I've had similar thoughts, and I thought that perhaps some of
functions of installation scripts can be replaced by hook scripts that
dpkg would run.
So you'd have something like, say, eight directories at
would run the scripts in them at the proper times. Each script would
define a file pattern that specifies which packages installations or
removals interest it. So, for instance,
/usr/lib/dpkg-hooks/before-post-install/40_dlconfig could specify that
it wants to be run every time a packages installs a file that matches
/usr/lib/*.so, and run just after unpacking.
I think many of the installation scripts would become unnecessary this
way. Also, it would be possible to change a distribution's behavior
without messing with every package -- a cleaner solution to the
/usr/doc and /usr/share/doc transition problem might be been
possible. And it would be easy to do things that right now are
difficult: for example, a package or the sysadmin could install hooks
to remount automatically some arbitrary filesystem r/o and r/w when a
package install wantes to touch it.
- Adi Stav