Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 09:01:30 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> To: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> Cc: ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/lang/gcc34 Makefile Message-ID: <20040321170130.GB159@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.58.0403211135080.41186@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> References: <200403170818.i2H8IFYU008824@repoman.freebsd.org> <Pine.BSF.4.58.0403171036060.94079@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> <Pine.BSF.4.58.0403171135480.94079@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> <20040317112344.GB86662@dragon.nuxi.com> <20040317182432.GA96023@dragon.nuxi.com> <Pine.BSF.4.58.0403190206360.94079@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> <20040320195311.GB89343@dragon.nuxi.com> <Pine.BSF.4.58.0403211135080.41186@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 11:54:05AM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2004, David O'Brien wrote:
> > Actually this is a bug in your pkg-plist. I just tested this with your
> > latest commits (Makefile rev 1.166, pkg-plist rev 1.55). This patch
> > (which I just committed) makes the existing breakage obvious:
> >
> > @dirrm libexec/gcc/%%GNU_HOST%%/%%GCC_VER%%
> > +@dirrm libexec/gcc/%%GNU_HOST%%
> > +@dirrm libexec/gcc
> > %%LIBJAVA%%share/java/libgcj-%%GCC_VER%%.jar
>
> Won't this break if more than gcc3x port has been installed?
Nope. When one 'pkg_delete' they'll just get a warning that the
directory couldn't be removed. AFAIK that is the prefered behavior vs.
potentially leaving behind an empty directory.
> (I'll shortly mark them as CONFLICTing, but in the longer term this
> should work.)
IMHO, you should not -- GCC fully supports more than one version
installed at the same time.
> > Can we agree to this patch now?
> >
> > .if ${ARCH} == "amd64"
> > CONFIGURE_TARGET= x86_64-portbld-freebsd${OSREL}
> > -.else
> > -CONFIGURE_TARGET= ${ARCH}-portbld-freebsd${OSREL}
> > .endif
>
> Sure, iff it survives full testing (including a `make deinstall` that
> really removes all files installed by the port).
Grrr. you're putting a higher bar on this patch than you've put on your
latest commits. The test should be no regression from the current state
of the port after committing this diff. As I mentioned, the problem
you claimed was caused by this patch existed before it.
--
-- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040321170130.GB159>