| 1 |
W dniu wto, 29.08.2017 o godzinie 16∶38 -0400, użytkownik Michael |
| 2 |
Orlitzky napisał: |
| 3 |
> What should happen if an ebuild calls "die" in pkg_prerm? |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Horrible things, I suppose. If something started uninstalling, |
| 6 |
and failed during uninstall the system integrity is compromised |
| 7 |
and user needs to perform manual recovery. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> The issue arose while trying to create a package that could not be |
| 10 |
> uninstalled except as part of an upgrade. The first thing that came to |
| 11 |
> mind was to have it die in pkg_prerm. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
This package does not belong in Gentoo. We do packaging, not some ugly |
| 14 |
malware that prevents users from uninstalling itself. Every package must |
| 15 |
be uninstallable. Even if it destroys my system, developers have no |
| 16 |
right to prevent valid uninstall action from proceeding. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> What portage does is *appear* to crash, but then continue along as if |
| 19 |
> nothing happened. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
That's probably because it wants to prevent the user from being unable |
| 22 |
to uninstall the package, e.g. if prerm partially succeeded which means |
| 23 |
every successive invocation would fail due to some prerm actions being |
| 24 |
done already. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> Does the PMS cover this indirectly? (Is there a reliable way to make |
| 27 |
> package removal fail?) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
No. PMS never covered shooting yourself in the foot, it's not meant to |
| 30 |
be fool-proof and we don't have the resources to cover every possible |
| 31 |
bad idea Gentoo developers might come up with. Or the ability to predict |
| 32 |
their insanity. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Best regards, |
| 36 |
Michał Górny |
Archives