at the first use of the 66-tree program the /etc/66/service should be created if it doesn't exist.
so any tree creation should create this folder.
Please try to create a tree and tell me(use -v4 as verbosity and post the output please)

Edit: just did a fresh installation and i didn't get the trouble, the /etc/66/service is created a first creation of the boot tree

It's my fault I haven't been clear enough. Two days ago, I created my trees and enable a service in a tree, which means that everything worked as expected. But yesterday I did the update, and since then I can no longer enable a service in my available trees with this error. Unless there is another problem, I only see this update for the moment which could be the cause of this is issue. The /etc/66/service has disappeared.

Ok, well I can confirm after a new test on my main machine. If directory /etc/66/service is empty and I update 66 version 0.2.3.0-1 to 66 version 0.2.3.2-1 the directory /etc/66/service is removed by the 66 update.

me too..

sudo 66-intree
-------------------->
Name        : root1
Initialized : yes
Enabled     : yes
Current     : yes
Contents    : dhcpcd-log  tty2  dbus-log  dbus  dhcpcd  tty1

ls /etc/66/service 
ls: cannot access '/etc/66/service': No such file or directory

ls /usr/lib/66/service
 boot/   dbus  'dbus-session@ '   dhcpcd  'tty@ '

I think i got what happens. The installation process of /etc/66/service (among other directories) was changed. Previously, the creation of this directory was made by the makefile(which is a bad behavior) which is not the case with 0.2.3.2. 66 now take care of all necessaries directories and create it if it missing when you use 66-tree.
Now pacman at update time see that the /etc/66/service is not existing anymore on the new version and so remove it if it's empty :/.

I need to make a warning at new site page.

So to correct the thing simply create a dummy tree (as root) and remove it

# 66-tree -n dummy
# 66-tree -R dummy

This should create the /etc/66/service automatically.
Thanks guys for your reports and sorry for the inconvenient.

but if it is not empty it is not removed, right?

Ok. I want to clarify the thing after some testing.

First, after a talk on arch channel, and a test I made myself with a simple pkgbuild to reproduce our case, pacman does not touch things it doesn't know about.

Second, I was curious if I can reproduce this issue with an upgrade from this last 66 0.2.3.2-1 version to a new one I made myself without any change inside the pkgbuild. The fact is, the empty /etc/66/service is not removed anymore.

So in my own conclusion, the change eric introduce on the 66 source code between the version 0.2.3.0-1 and 0.2.3.2-1 is the only reason of this issue and should not happen again with the next 66 upgrade.

fungalnet wrotebut if it is not empty it is not removed, right?

Right, if it's not empty it's not removed, I can confirm this with an upgrade done from my OS in a VM

jean-michel wroteFirst, after a talk on arch channel, and a test I made myself with a simple pkgbuild to reproduce our case, pacman does not touch things it doesn't know about.

Yes, but in your case (at 0.2.3.0-1 version) pacman know about /etc/66/service because it create by the makefile. When you run makepkg, you will have a resulting empty directory pkg/etc/66/service. So pacman know about this directory.

Second, I was curious if I can reproduce this issue with an upgrade from this last 66 0.2.3.2-1 version to a new one I made myself without any change inside the pkgbuild. The fact is, the empty /etc/66/service is not removed anymore.

Yes, you got the point of my change. Installing empty directories by pacman was clearly a bad behavior (proof on this update). So from the 0.2.3.2-1 version , this trouble will not be seen anymore. Also, other "distro" will be happy with this change too.

So in my own conclusion, the change eric introduce on the 66 source code between the version 0.2.3.0-1 and 0.2.3.2-1 is the only reason of this issue and should not happen again with the next 66 upgrade.

correct :)

fungalnet wrotebut if it is not empty it is not removed, right?

if it was the case the /var/lib/66 would have been erased

Thx eric :)