W dniu nie, 12.11.2017 o godzinie 07∶53 -0500, użytkownik Michael Orlitzky napisał: > On 11/11/2017 02:26 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > > As far as the actual implementation goes, I'm not sure that > > > automatically-generated ".keep" files are better than having the package > > > manager maintain its own database. The latter would be more complex, but > > > would avoid littering everyone's filesystems with ".keep" files. > > > > Do you care enough to spec this properly, introduce EAPI-conditional > > behavior for it and prepare patches for the package managers? > > > > Some day -- I'll add it to my list. For now I'll update the docs to > explain why you should use keepdir, and do a QA warning for empty > directories.
I'm not convinced a QA warning is valid, given that not every empty directory is meaningful. You're going to either cause people to create unnecessary 'keepdir's, or to be swamped by false positives. > Then how does this sound for EAPI=next? > > * Ban keepdir. > > * Have portage call its keepdir code on any empty directories in $D > between src_install and pkg_preinst. How does this account for /run and other non-persistent locations? > * Update the devmanual and portage documentation to suggest dodir > instead of keepdir in the new EAPI. > > * Change the PMS to remove "undefined behavior" and replace it with > "empty directories must be tracked, and may only be removed once no > installed package is using them," or something along those lines. > That leaves the implementation up to the PM. ...and makes interoperability between different package managers impossible, defeating the purpose of PMS in the first place. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
