[H-GEN] package management systems.

Bruce Campbell bc at humbug.org.au
Wed Feb 12 09:46:59 EST 2003


[ Humbug *General* list - semi-serious discussions about Humbug and     ]
[ Unix-related topics. Posts from non-subscribed addresses will vanish. ]

On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Greg Black wrote:

> | > This is a perfect example of the glaring faults that infest most
> | > of the package management systems out there.  If you have to use
> | > a different name to uninstall the thing from the name you used
> | > to install it, then the tool you're condemned to use is just
> | > broken.  (This afflicts the FreeBSD packages as well, it's not
> | > just a Linux thing.)

> My complaint is about having to use one name to install
> something and a different name to uninstall it.  Whether or not
> you agree with me, I am expressing a legitimate gripe with many
> package management systems.

All responders to this thread have assumed that your mention of 'name'
refers to either the source filename of a package, or the name of a
package (depending on context).  This answer also has this assumption, as
you have not clarified it (eg, you might have been referring to different
command line tools need to install or uninstall).

Ideally, you seem to want to be able to do:

	pkg_tool -install_flags arbitary_string
and
	pkg_tool -uninstall_flags arbitary_string

With any file-based package management tool, you do need to specify the
source filename for the package when installing, hence 'arbitary_string'
is the name of the file that you specified when retrieving/building the
package.  This has been summed up as:

Robert Kearey:
> | The package name is not the filename

So, lets see what can be done to fix it.  You could, as has been pointed
out, use a package management tool that can find 'arbitary_string' either
from the network, or by searching all seeming package files for a package
named 'arbitary_string', and ensure that all packages are installed this
way.

Sounds cool, yes?  Unfortunately, the developer that has multiple versions
of the same package in separate files in the same directory, and can't
install the one that he wants to test due to the package management tool
not doing the Right Thing, that chap is rather annoyed and would like a
few words.

Or, you could use a package management tool that stored the name of the
file that you installed the package from, and allowed you to 'uninstall'
that package source file.

Sounds cool, yes?  Unfortunately, if for one reason or another (say, a
fixed command in .ssh/authorized_keys) you've installed packages always
from 'saved_file.pkg', doing 'pkg_rm saved_file.pkg' would be a large
disaster.

> | - that way of thinking
> | leads is the reason people assume .doc files are Word documents. Feh to
> | that, and so on.
>
> Why, thank you for playing.  I think I won't bother any more
> with this.

And the final score of RobK vs GregB is:

	RobK		GregB
	   1		  0  (forfeit)

 From the tone of replies Greg, you seem to have expressed a problem
without applying a bit of Common Sense.  Yes, most package management
tools do 'allow' packages to be installed from an arbitary filename, and
then 'insist' that you find out the proper name of the package before
uninstalling it.  Doing otherwise does not appear to be the 'Right Thing'
to do, and most (all?) package management systems seem to adhere to this.

--==--
Bruce.

Common Sense Inc.


--
* This is list (humbug) general handled by majordomo at lists.humbug.org.au .
* Postings to this list are only accepted from subscribed addresses of
* lists 'general' or 'general-post'.  See http://www.humbug.org.au/



More information about the General mailing list