[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: semi-virtual packages?

On Thu September 27 2007 05:38:53 pm Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:08:49 -0600, Bruce Sass <bmsass@shaw.ca> said:
> > The bit you're still missing is the first part of the question you
> > didn't answer: "Is there any situation where ownership has
> > collided"
> >
> > IOW: if the file shared by many packages isn't having ownership
> > problems there is no need to consider it (no point trying to fix
> > something that is not broken, eh).
>         The start of this thread was a rant about not loose files
>  floating around in /etc; not necessarily about whether these files
> in themselves had ownership problems (whtever that means).
>         Here is the original context. Note how you say the problem
>  (actually, design flaw) is about current tools do not "catch files
>  created by Maintainer scripts"?
>         Nice to see the design flaw has become stuff that is not
> broken and does not have to be fixed.  That is all I cared about,
> really.

Oleg considers it a design flaw, I have stated no such opinion and 
didn't even include his statement to that effect in my reply. Why would 
you bring it up... grasping at straws, perhaps.

The original context I was responding to, and which you jumped in on, is 
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 03:46:26 -0600, Bruce Sass <bmsass@shaw.ca> said: 

> On Sat September 22 2007 12:16:18 am Oleg Verych (Gmane) wrote:
>> 21-09-2007, Bruce Sass:
>> > On Thu September 20 2007 09:25:23 pm Oleg Verych (Gmane) wrote:
>> >> 19-09-2007, Bruce Sass:
>> >> > I'm hoping the dpkg "triggers" functionality Ian Jackson has
>> >> > been working on will help solve that wart though.
>> >>
>> >> How exactly?
>> >
>> > Exactly? I don't know. I haven't followed what is happening close
>> > enough.
>> >
>> > Basically, it allows a package to toss up a flag saying, `I'm here
>> > and <something> needs to be done.' It may require some convention
>> > and a little more infrastructure, but that is close to letting a
>> > package say, `add these paths to the list of paths which I
>> > control.'
>> Sure. But i thought, we are talking about finding/listing of
>> generated files.

> It is not feasible (imo) to automatically find files created by
> maintainer scripts. Having packages append <package>.list themselves
> would (afaict) require they know too much about dpkg's internal
> operation, and all packages generating files would need to implement
> the algorithm.

> However, maintainer scripts can easily pass a list of generated paths
> on to a shared piece of code which dpkg controls. "triggers" looks
> like it could be the mechanism by which a package flags that it has
> generated files, and by which dpkg exerts control.

        But this does not address the case of a file shared by many
 packages but really owned by none.


You then proceeded to demonstrate that you: have trouble reading, 
following arguments, keeping track of what your own use case actually 
is, and using logic.  You are now finishing up with misquotes and 
misrepresentation of anothers position.  Do you wonder why you get in 
so many fights and pointless arguments. :-/

Bye-bye, and I wish you luck in whatever little fantasy world you've 
constructed for yourself.

- Bruce

Reply to: