Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:04:40 +0100 From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> To: Eivind Eklund <eivind@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: HEADS UP: New bsd.*.mk changes Message-ID: <400D4388.6060708@fillmore-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <20040120140942.GD94636@FreeBSD.org> References: <1074590694.85583.20.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <400D2939.5090203@fillmore-labs.com> <20040120133020.GB94636@FreeBSD.org> <400D344B.6010403@fillmore-labs.com> <20040120140942.GD94636@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Eivind Eklund wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:59:39PM +0100, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
>
>>Eivind Eklund wrote:
>>
>>>improvement). And I thought it was supposed to be unique, while it seems
>>>it isn't. That said, I think the name LATEST_LINK should be changed
>>>(possibly
>>>not right now) if LATEST_LINK is to be used this way.
>>>
>>>Also, I don't see why LATEST_LINK would always be unique - instead, it
>>>looks to
>>>me as if there could be conflicts between different ports on this (while I
>>>thought
>>>we defined that there shouldn't be for PORTNAME).
>>
>>The problem with the current solution is that renaming OPTIONSFILE is not
>>easy, because ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PORTNAME} is somewhat hardcoded in bsd.port.mk
>>now. I can change PORT_DBDIR, but have to accept ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PORTNAME},
>>which is bad. Perhaps we should have
>>OPTIONSFILE?=${PORT_DBDIR}/${LATEST_LINK}.options,
>>which is easier to change.
>
> I don't think this particular name is usable right now - we "need" something
> that falls back to ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PORTNAME}, as the OPTIONS system is now
> in production, ports have started to use it[1], and people will have started
> storing options in just a few hours. Unless we can resolve this within
> those few hours, we need to have the same ultimate fallback.
>
> [1] Well, only security/snort so far, so I'm going to ask the committer to
> back that out until the present hoopla is sorted out.
I.e. in snort: $PORTNAME = $LATEST_LINK = "snort"
>>LATEST_LINK should be unique for each package, and I guess if two ports
>>have the same LATEST_LINK they CONFLICT anyway.
>
> Whether they conflict is really immaterial - they shouldn't share options.
I agree..
>>But I don't care if we use LATEST_LINK or something else, as long as it
>>is easily changeable in the case of conflicts.
>
> PORTNAME? ;-)
How about having something like
OPTIONSDIR?=${PORT_DBDIR}/${LATEST_LINK}
this should be compatible for the few ports that use OPTIONS now, is easily
changeable in case of conflicts and does The Right Thing in most cases.
LATEST_LIST is unique for 9860 ports, the most prominent example where this
isn't the case being the various jdk's. Other ports like mysql-*, postfix,
staroffice and cyrus-imapd should be fixed anyway.
-Oliver
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?400D4388.6060708>