Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 09:19:01 +0100 (CET) From: Simon J Mudd <sjmudd@pobox.com> To: <questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Packaging with ports (was: gv port builds but fails - needing libpng.so.4) Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0111270910250.8079-100000@phoenix.ea4els.ampr.org> In-Reply-To: <15363.13201.327012.470117@guru.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Mike Meyer wrote: > Simon J Mudd <sjmudd@pobox.com> types: > > On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Mike Meyer wrote: > > > > I'm still surprised that I'm allowed to install kdelibs-2.2_3 > > > > over kdelibs-2.1.1. That IMHO shouldn't be allowed. > > > I've already addressed why it's allowed, and should continue to be > > > allowed. > > If there are no conflicts it makes sense (using a different PREFIX for > > example). If there are conflicts it doesn't make sense. > > It's not that simple. If I'm upgrading from libfoo.so.1 to > libfoo.so.2, then instaling .2 over .1 means I don't break the > applications that depend on .1. Later, when I delete .1 I'm probably > going to screw up .2. On the other hand, at that time I'll be > reinstalling everything that depends on .1 anyway, so reinstalling .2 > isn't that much of a problem. I understand, but still think a warning is appropriate. As you say forcing the installation of .2, may partially corrupt .1. If this is a library with include files and stuff then it is almost certain that the .1's include.h files have been overwritten. > > What I was getting at here is that it's easy to shoot yourself in the toe > > and _sometimes_ it's IMO too easy. > > > > In the end I don't think we are arguing about content, more about end-user > > (system administrator in this case) presentation of the packaging system. > > Yup. I've agreed that having packages test the plist and warn you if > any of the files already exist would be a good thing. Even for ports, > it'd be a good thing - just a lot harder to do. ok. Thanks. > > > > Those files with different paths aren't affected. > > > > Those files with the same names which differ will effectively wipe out the > > > > older version. this conflict effectively makes the stored package > > > > information wrong and misleading. > > > Yup. That's just one reason for deleting the old version of a package > > > before installing a new one. > > perhaps portupgrade should be a basic part of the port system. that way it > > would be more consistent if I could do a "make upgrade" > > There are two problems with that. One is that it's a stop-gap, waiting > on the libh work. The second is that it would require putting ruby in > the base system. That in itself will generate a lot of resistance. I've seen that ruby is quite large. Perhaps another tool to do the same job would be appropriate. You reasons for not including this _now_ make sense. One thing I like about FreeBSD is that the base system is small. [snip] > You don't need /usr/ports installed to get the "automaticly fetch > dependencies" feature. pkg_add will do the same thing for you. If > you're fetching the packages from a remote site, it will try to fetch > the dependency packages remotely as well. I wasn't aware of this, and yes it is very useful. Ok. I think we finally understand each other even if our points of view are different. Thanks, I'll have to get subscribed to libh. Simon -- Simon J Mudd, Tel: +34-91-408 4878, Mobile: +34-605-085 219 Madrid, Spain. email: sjmudd@pobox.com, Postfix RPM Packager To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.33.0111270910250.8079-100000>