Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 09:54:45 +0200 From: Patrik Sundberg <ps@radiac.mine.nu> To: ports@freebsd.org Cc: ps@radiac.mine.nu Subject: Feature request Message-ID: <20000529095445.A86482@radiac.mine.nu>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, I have been thinking about a thing which could be improved in the ports-system. If I install some ports, take various gnome-ports for an example and something which depends on those, let's say sawmill wm, everything works like a charm with pkg-dependencies etc if I remove the sawmill package. Now I update my ports tree to get the latest sawmill version, and because I'm lazy I cvsup the whole ports-tree and don't use just cvs to update sawmill. I install the new sawmill which are happy with the installed gnome-libs etc - we are happy. But in the cvsup also gnome-libs etc were updated to new versions. If I remove the sawmill package now the dependencies are just wrong - it has @pkgdep lines refering to the gnome-libs etc versions in the ports tree (which aren't installed) and not to the versions actually on my machine. I realise it takes some more intelligens to accomplish correct behaviour and possibly some extensive restructuring, but I really think this should be fixed. I haven't come up with a solution on my own but I think a multilevel /var/db/pkg-entry in accordance to the new PORTNAME/PORTVERSION (eg pkg/sawmill/0.26 and pkg/sawmill/0.27.2) should take care of most things, upon a install/register we should first look for the version in the ports-tree and if this doesn't exist we should use the other latest version installed in that directory and possibly have some scheme for iterating further. Since the port built some installed version must be accurate, and if that version is in the ports-system this method would get correct dependencies, if it were "hand-rolled" it won't do any harm with a couple of extra tests. Then maybe it should create an entry in some general file direct under pkg/PORTNAME, this I didn't think of until now. I guess packages are a bit harder to fix since the +CONTENTS file uses hardcoded versions of ports and not library versions etc. This would require some mayor restructuring, and I think it should be done since the current scheme is quite stupid. What does people think about this? Please CC me since I am not on the ports-list, I really want to know what people think and if someone feels up to doing the changes (myself don't know much about the pkg-tools etc and doesn't have any time over for the comming 3 weeks). -- Patrik Sundberg - email: ps@raditex.se || ps@radiac.mine.nu ---> telefon: 013-178 567 - mobiltelefon: 070-760 22 40 <--- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000529095445.A86482>