On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 19:28:28 +0200, Hisham Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/9/06, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 17:15:25 +0200, Hisham Muhammad >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >> > On 9/9/06, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Added installation of unmanaged files to SymlinkProgram >> > >> > Installation of unmanaged files is/should not be made at >> > SymlinkProgram, but at InstallPackage and Compile. You don't want >> > unmanaged files to be re-copied every time you switch versions using >> > SymlinkProgram, for example. >> > >> As one, at least I, wants to remove the files when one uses >> RemoveProgram, >> and presumably with DisablePrograms as well, there should be a way to >> get >> the files back into place without having to Compile/unpack the entire >> application. I could add a check to see if the file exists, or just >> remove >> the '-f', but then again there could be version specific unmanaged >> files, >> like the kernel module for rlocate, and therefore it needs to be copied >> everytime one switches version with SymlinkProgram. > > Agreed. Maybe SymlinkProgram can have a --unmanaged flag instead, and > do "ask" when called from the command line (and act automatically when > called from InstallPackage and Compile?). > Instead of having it boolean as it is today? >> >> Made installation of unmanaged files use hard links and fall back to >> >> copy >> > >> > Hard links are a bad idea for installation of unmanaged files, because >> > when you edit a file in the unmanaged location, it will modify the >> > files under Resources/ (this will "taint" the program, will break >> > signature verification and make it easy to get site-specific stuff >> > stored by accident in packages). >> > >> Fair enough, but perhaps you should have mentioned this in the thread >> "Suggestions to Compile"? > > Yes, I should have, my bad. :( I haven't followed the list as closely > as I should have the last few days. Sorry about catching this only > after the commit. > > For the space-conscious, maybe this could become a configurable > setting, a settable flag in some .conf file under Settings/Scripts. > I'm not really sure if the saved space is worth the effort (and the > risk of messing with packages) but still. > I fail to see this risk as I can't see any dynamic files going into unmanaged. >> Otoh, most unmanaged files are static (aren't all), so this shouldn't be >> an issue(?). > > Not necessarily. Var stuff is 'variable' by nature... > Well, the name gives it away. :) I wasn't aware that var stuff should go to unmanaged. Are you meaning /var stuff or other variable stuff? If the former, I must have missed that information, when was that decided, and if the latter, I can't really see any variable files that _have_ to be in unmanaged, but can be forced into some of the managed directories under /Programs -- /Jonas Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
