Branden Robinson wrote: > Well, I'll definitely bring this up to the other guys on my team. > > I am concerned about the possible consequences of such a feature though, > since it will enable users to break the assumptions of postinst and > prerm scripts. Such scripts can generally assume that the "package has > been unpacked" when they run. But with a path pruning feature, some > parts of the package may never be unpacked. > > For such a feature to really float is going to demand that people write > their maintainer scripts a little bit differently. Doogie was saying something on irc the other day about excludes already being on the planned features list for 2.0. Some of the issues around exclusions have already been anticipated, for example policy allows for the deletion (or non-installation) of /usr/share/doc and that may not break any packages. Existing hacks like that package whose name I cannot remember that removed unwanted locales also show this kind of thing can often be done with little trouble. I guess once we have the capability we will want to add more such things to policy for other common exclusions (/usr/share/locale comes to mind, as well as info and man pages). As to some admin adding /sbin or something to the exclusions, that is merely a case of more rope. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
pgpyx0EcI7Sjq.pgp
Description: PGP signature