From owner-freebsd-ports Thu May 1 16:16:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA24348 for ports-outgoing; Thu, 1 May 1997 16:16:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [194.198.43.36]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA24327; Thu, 1 May 1997 16:16:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) id BAA24021; Fri, 2 May 1997 01:15:48 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 01:15:48 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199705012315.BAA24021@bitbox.follo.net> From: Eivind Eklund To: "Pedro F. Giffuni" CC: ports@FreeBSD.ORG, imp@FreeBSD.ORG, msmith@FreeBSD.ORG, jhk@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: "Pedro F. Giffuni"'s message of Thu, 01 May 1997 16:15:31 -0700 Subject: Re: Ports/Version Numbers 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> Sender: owner-ports@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk [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.