From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 20 07:51:09 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC43937B401 for ; Sun, 20 Apr 2003 07:51:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ciam.ru (main.ciam.ru [213.147.57.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A84D43FBF for ; Sun, 20 Apr 2003 07:51:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sem@ciam.ru) Received: from exim by mail.ciam.ru with drweb-scanned (Exim 4.14) id 197G9n-000GUt-4R; Sun, 20 Apr 2003 18:51:03 +0400 Received: from sem.ciam.ru ([192.168.45.10] helo=sem) by mail.ciam.ru with smtp (Exim 4.14) id 197G9m-000GUJ-9m; Sun, 20 Apr 2003 18:51:02 +0400 Message-ID: <000501c3074c$e5c2be80$0a2da8c0@sem> From: "Sergey Matveychuk" To: Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 18:55:32 +0400 Organization: CIAM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 cc: kris@obsecurity.org Subject: Re: Recent bsd.port.mk changes X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 14:51:10 -0000 Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > On Fri, 2003-04-18 at 00:57, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > In your case since the PREFIX is different they don't actually > > conflict so one might argue that it should be allowed. I suppose > > that's something that could be checked in bsd.port.mk by extracting > > the prefix for the existing package from the contents file and > > comparing to PREFIX. Disagree. This case really dangerous for users. What happened if you try install a port with other PREFIX than already installed port with the same version? You'll lose port information in PKG_DBDIR. And when you'll deinstall new installed port you'll have got orphan files. That is user must understand the dangerous and use FORCE_PKG_REGISTER=yes for his responsibility. > This would be acceptable. However, the make deinstall would still > remove both versions. What about keeping make deinstall the same as it > was with one exception: if you type make deinstall in a port directory, > and the version specified by that port's Makefile is not installed (but > another version with the same origin is), then the other version would > be deinstalled. However, if a package is found that matches the version > specified in the port's Makefile, then only that version is removed. We Sounds good. > could then add a make deinstall-all target to handle deinstalling all > packages with the same origin. Something like what's attached. Kris, what do you think about this new target? I don't see necessity of it. I'd like to test this patch properly. ---- Sem.