Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 18:46:22 +0100 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Upgrading php with pkg Message-ID: <20150223174622.GD34473@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <CAF-QHFULCv1fk6egUkHLJTuNSR7otBTSYq6ySV6YKk6QmZOjMQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAF-QHFULCv1fk6egUkHLJTuNSR7otBTSYq6ySV6YKk6QmZOjMQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--mJm6k4Vb/yFcL9ZU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 05:48:46PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote: > Hi, >=20 > It's time for my yearly rant about pkg seemingly not being able to upgrade > whole sets of dependencies while installing or upgrading packages. >=20 > In short, if we have this: >=20 > package A depends on package B, which depends on package C >=20 > ...upgrading package B *must always* result in an upgrade to package A, a= nd > *must* cause an upgrade of package C *iff* the new version of package B is > linked with a different version of package C (e.g. if it depends on a new= er > version of package C). >=20 > Using heuristics such as checking versions encoded in .so filenames are > rarely enough because (upstream) developers are lazy. I can give examples > from the PHP-Apache-PostgreSQL stack at request. >=20 > If this is not done, we have the situation described here: > http://ivoras.net/blog/tree/2015/Feb-why-freebsds-pkg-sucks.html >=20 > The post is somewhat strongly worded, and I believe it will be even more > strongly worded a year from now ;) The only problem here is the lack of developers and of time, btw this is not interdependency this is cherry-picking, interdependency works well when upgrading all at one. Beside what some people would like the ports tree and packages is a whole thing. Either you upgrade everything or you do not... This is what non frozen packages gives you, you may like it or not this is = how it is, and it is mostly impossible to prevent that without an important wor= k on both the port side and the pkg side. BTW: using strong words might sound fun, but the only reaction achieved with that is demotivation... We are doing what we can with very few resources, i= f one want to see this fixed and/or properly handled this is clearly not with str= ong words... Bapt --mJm6k4Vb/yFcL9ZU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlTrZ24ACgkQ8kTtMUmk6EyYxQCeLitStxwOPbFShdB9Zx9l4OkK +7sAoMLX3kt/fMjXXi6HQ0sNlOWHpKzX =rjG0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --mJm6k4Vb/yFcL9ZU--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150223174622.GD34473>