Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 2 May 1997 01:15:48 +0200 (MET DST)
From:      Eivind Eklund <eivind@bitbox.follo.net>
To:        "Pedro F. Giffuni" <pgiffuni@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co>
Cc:        ports@FreeBSD.ORG, imp@FreeBSD.ORG, msmith@FreeBSD.ORG, jhk@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Ports/Version Numbers
Message-ID:  <199705012315.BAA24021@bitbox.follo.net>
In-Reply-To: "Pedro F. Giffuni"'s message of Thu, 01 May 1997 16:15:31 -0700
References:  <3.0.32.19970430093850.00fc1c10@dimaga.com> <33679BAB.5FA@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> <199705011921.VAA23664@bitbox.follo.net> <33692413.2121@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

[Cc:'s to people the that are most likely to be directly affected by
this and I'm not certain read the ports list - unfortunately, I could
find no mention of the ports collection on the NetBSD web site.]
 
> Eivind Eklund wrote:
> > > > with a new version of the same port, and with no warnings.  Are
> > > > there any benefits beyond the fact that the presently installed
> > > > version number is obvious (which we probably could fix anyway)?
> > >
> 
> > I don't know what the 'so called "fix"' is - I was thinking about
> > either putting a 'VERSION' file in the pkg directory or having a
> > symlink from the package+version number to the real package directory.
> > 
> This is exactly the problem, no one has offered a fix :-). The packaging
> system is standard ..I don't know where it came from but AIX and the
> other (4.4)*BSDs use ir.

I've just offered two fixes :-) Both unfortunately need changes to
anything adding/deleting packages - I have Cc:'ed the respective
maintainers.  This is bad for backwards compatibility, but something I
believe would be a Good Thing(tm) for 3.0.  It would probably be best
if the installer did a convert on update, though.

> I don't know what would be the effect of adding a VERSION file, or up to
> what point this should be handled by the ports tree. It would certainly
> not be handled by other BSDs (remember Net and OpenBSD emulate us, and
> the packages have a value for them).

I know.  However, I still belive we should try to make the best
possible system - and I don't think Warner (the OpenBSD ports
collection maintainer) disagree.  Cc:'ed.
 
> > What do you mean by "not obvious" and has caused problems?  Version
> > number is obvious?  I'm fairly certain we can find a way around that.
>
> The "fairly certain" is not obvious...all ideas are welcome, but we
> can't simply wipe out the version numbers that easy.
> (BTW, how does RPM manage this ?)

It checks all installs for overlapping files, have a basename and a
version number, offers a -U option for upgrading an already installed
package, and a --force option to install even if there is file overlap
and it isn't the same package (basename).

The data is stored in a standard libdb file, with a library (librpm)
and tools for manipulating it.

I don't believe most users manipulate the /var/db/pkg directory
directly, either, and that we should just update the tools.  If we do
different updates to bsd.ports.mk for -current and 2.1/2.2, we should
probably be able to run the same ports on both, with version tracking
for -current.  I can work up a patch if people believe this to be a
good idea.

Eivind.





Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199705012315.BAA24021>