Re: How should we handle fink-bld?

On Apr 22, 2012, at 8:24 PM, Alexander Hansen wrote:

> On 4/22/12 3:54 PM, David R. Morrison wrote:
>> 
>> On Apr 22, 2012, at 6:43 PM, Alexander Hansen wrote:
>> 
>>> Now that we've got master fink able to bootstrap, another question to
>>> resolve before we do a release is how we bring in the 'fink-bld' user.
>>> 
>>> 1) One option that has been mentioned (dmacks) is to append
>>> passwd-fink-bld in the implicit BuildDepends for every package.  This is
>>> currently done for 'dev-tools' as well.  One drawback is that our
>>> 10.5/10.6 passwd is still monolithic, so this means that all of passwd
>>> will get installed (not just built) as soon as a user installs his/her
>>> first package. On the plus side, we're not increasing the list of
>>> "special" (built as part of the bootstrap operation but not Essential)
>>> packages, and it will take but one additional line of code in
>>> PkgVersion.pm to implement.
>>> 
>>> 2) Another choice would be to strip the passwd-fink-bld stuff out of the
>>> passwd package and let fink add its user in its own PostInstScript.
>>> This would involve a lot more coding that option 1).  On the other hand,
>>> we avoid installing all of passwd for all 10.5/10.6 users.
>> 
>> Here's my 2 cents:
>> 
>> The reason we originally gave users the option of *not* allowing fink's passwd package to muck with the system (if they chose) is that fink is trying to avoid mucking with the system wherever possible, and this let some users opt-out of that particular system modification.
>> 
>> Now, I don't see how we can avoid (in the modern day and age) creating the fink-bld user.  But I don't see a compelling reason to take away the user's option to decline further system modification.
>> 
>> So I would be in favor of option #2, and leaving the passwd system largely untouched except for the special case of the fink-bld user.
>> 
>>  -- Dave
>> 
> 
> Option 2) wasn't that bad, as it turned out.  Anybody who is interested
> can grab the "fink_creates_fink-bld" branch from github.  Or download it
> from
> 
> https://github.com/fink/fink/tree/fink_creates_fink-bld
> 
> if you don't have a local copy of the fink repo.  I have fink generate
> the fink-bld user during its PostInstScript if that user isn't present.

I had a further thought about this.  I think we should mark the fink package itself "BuildAsNobody: false".  That way, if there is some screwup and the postinstall script doesn't work, the user will still be able to try rebuilding fink.  Otherwise, we've potentially bricked their fink installation (as far as building things goes).

  -- Dave


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Developers, A Lot Can Happen In A Second.
Boundary is the first to Know...and Tell You.
Monitor Your Applications in Ultra-Fine Resolution. Try it FREE!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-d2dvs2
_______________________________________________
fink-core mailing list
[email protected]
List archive:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.core
Subscription management:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-core