Re: [HEADS UP] PKGTOOLS_REQD bump and related changes

[jnemeth%victoria.tc.ca@localhost (John Nemeth)]

On Nov 6,  2:12am, Alistair Crooks wrote:
} On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 06:09:31PM -0700, John Nemeth wrote:
} > On Nov 5,  7:43pm, Alistair Crooks wrote:
} > } Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] PKGTOOLS_REQD bump and related changes
} > } On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:30:42PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
} > } > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 09:19:43PM +0100, Alistair Crooks wrote:
} > } > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 09:46:43PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
} > } > > > 
} > } > > > before the freeze I have commmitted the following large scale 
changes.
} > } > > > This can result in some fallout, so be warned:
} > } > > > 
} > } > > > (2) @dirrm
} > } > > > 
} > } > > > pkg_delete is performing automatic pruning of directories now. Empty
} > } > > > directories in packages can be requested by @pkgdir in the PLIST and
} > } > > > will be considered. As some packages had quite a bit of magic 
related
} > } > > > to @dirrm entries, there might be some fallout. I am running a bulk
} > } > > > build now to identify those issues.
} > } > > 
} > } > > Is the @dirrm directive not recognised any more, or is there an error 
or
} > } > > warning message attached?
} > } > 
} > } > It is silently ignored. The edge cases where it doesn't work are small
} > } > enough that I don't think a warning is justified.
} > } 
} > } Ah, right, silent ignorance - not really a good policy at any time,
} > } and especially not when it comes to adding an old binary package. 
} > } Forcing everyone to re-compile binary packages is a bit of a copout,
} > } isn't it?
} > 
} >      As I understand it, in the new world order, empty directories are
} > automatically removed, thus making @dirrm superflouous.  Since @dirrm
} > with current pkg_install is essentially a No-Op, what is the issue with
} > simply ignoring it?
} 
} I'm not sure how that gels with Joerg's statement above:
} 
}       "It is silently ignored.  The edge cases where it doesn't work
}       are small enough that I don't think a warning is justified."

     Yes, the edge cases are something that we may need to hear more
about.

} If things fail safe, then I wouldn't worry. They obviously don't, though.
} Why does it hurt anyone to print out an informative message about what is
} happening?

     Informative message or useless noise?  Too much of either is just
confusing to end users.  It also tends to "train" end users to ignore
most of what they see, which means they miss important stuff when it
comes up.

} The worrying thing is the bit that has been deleted where we seem to have
} migrated into a lower-case world, and suggestions on how to drag ourselves
} out of the mire are dismissed as a "one-time change". Thomas has printed
} out one case where it won't work at all.

     Yes, it is a more worrying thing.  I thought your previous message
about it covered the point nicely, which is why I didn't bother
commenting on it, or including it again.

} Come on, folks, this isn't difficult - have some consideration for users,
} please.

     This is what I'm trying to do by having excess noise printed.

}-- End of excerpt from Alistair Crooks