1 |
W dniu nie, 12.11.2017 o godzinie 07∶53 -0500, użytkownik Michael |
2 |
Orlitzky napisał: |
3 |
> On 11/11/2017 02:26 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
4 |
> > > |
5 |
> > > As far as the actual implementation goes, I'm not sure that |
6 |
> > > automatically-generated ".keep" files are better than having the package |
7 |
> > > manager maintain its own database. The latter would be more complex, but |
8 |
> > > would avoid littering everyone's filesystems with ".keep" files. |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > Do you care enough to spec this properly, introduce EAPI-conditional |
11 |
> > behavior for it and prepare patches for the package managers? |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Some day -- I'll add it to my list. For now I'll update the docs to |
15 |
> explain why you should use keepdir, and do a QA warning for empty |
16 |
> directories. |
17 |
|
18 |
I'm not convinced a QA warning is valid, given that not every empty |
19 |
directory is meaningful. You're going to either cause people to create |
20 |
unnecessary 'keepdir's, or to be swamped by false positives. |
21 |
|
22 |
> Then how does this sound for EAPI=next? |
23 |
> |
24 |
> * Ban keepdir. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> * Have portage call its keepdir code on any empty directories in $D |
27 |
> between src_install and pkg_preinst. |
28 |
|
29 |
How does this account for /run and other non-persistent locations? |
30 |
|
31 |
> * Update the devmanual and portage documentation to suggest dodir |
32 |
> instead of keepdir in the new EAPI. |
33 |
> |
34 |
> * Change the PMS to remove "undefined behavior" and replace it with |
35 |
> "empty directories must be tracked, and may only be removed once no |
36 |
> installed package is using them," or something along those lines. |
37 |
> That leaves the implementation up to the PM. |
38 |
|
39 |
...and makes interoperability between different package managers |
40 |
impossible, defeating the purpose of PMS in the first place. |
41 |
|
42 |
-- |
43 |
Best regards, |
44 |
Michał Górny |