From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 12 22:41:10 2004 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 7D2E316A4CE for ; Mon, 12 Apr 2004 22:41:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from endif.cjb.net (65-101-229-205.dnvr.qwest.net [65.101.229.205]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D730D43D1F for ; Mon, 12 Apr 2004 22:41:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from end@endif.cjb.net) Received: (qmail 10432 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2004 05:41:03 -0000 Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 13 Apr 2004 05:41:03 -0000 Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:41:03 -0600 From: Robin Schoonover To: Erich Dollansky In-Reply-To: <407B780F.5030102@pacific.net.sg> References: <407B6B43.2050507@pacific.net.sg> <20040413042929.GA24603@xor.obsecurity.org> <407B780F.5030102@pacific.net.sg> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.10claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd5.2.1) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20040413054109.D730D43D1F@mx1.FreeBSD.org> cc: Garance A Drosihn cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org cc: Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: Second "RFC" on pkg-data idea for ports 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: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 05:41:10 -0000 On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 13:18:07 +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote: > Hi, > > Kris Kennaway wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 12:23:31PM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote: > > > >>It would be real helpfull to users if the package or port system would > >>be able to automatically overcome this problem with installing the > >>needed version in a way that the installed versions stays intact. > > > > > > Take a look at the portupgrade port, I think that's what you're trying > > to describe. > > > If I understood portupgrade right, it upgrade a port but it still does > not allow to keep the old version in parallel allowing one application > using the old one while the other application uses the new one. That's rather difficult to do. The biggest problem you hit right away is a port will (usually) conflict with itself. In other words, all the versions will want the same files in the same place. So in order to fix this properly, you'd have to have separate places for each file (or different file name). Then you need some way for application x and application y which each depend on your port of multiple versions to use the port version you want them to. -- Robin Schoonover (aka End) # # We have them just where they want us. -- James Kirk #