From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 5 20:54:27 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B74B16A420 for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2006 20:54:27 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from conrads@cox.net) Received: from eastrmmtao05.cox.net (eastrmmtao05.cox.net [68.230.240.34]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBD0443D46 for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2006 20:54:26 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from conrads@cox.net) Received: from serene.no-ip.org ([68.14.59.177]) by eastrmmtao05.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20060205205431.IBLM14098.eastrmmtao05.cox.net@serene.no-ip.org>; Sun, 5 Feb 2006 15:54:31 -0500 Received: from serene.no-ip.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by serene.no-ip.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k15KsC1K021413; Sun, 5 Feb 2006 14:54:13 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from conrads@serene.no-ip.org) Received: (from conrads@localhost) by serene.no-ip.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id k15Ks7W3021412; Sun, 5 Feb 2006 14:54:07 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from conrads) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.5 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20060205201004.GA26968@endaba.vindaloo.com> Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 14:54:07 -0600 (CST) From: Conrad Sabatier To: Christopher Sean Hilton Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Gnome port X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 20:54:27 -0000 On 05-Feb-2006 Christopher Sean Hilton wrote: > Is there a reason that the gnome 2 ports don't use the conflicts > mechanism to avoid completely hosing an existing gnome 2 install? On > Friday I came across a gimp script-fu which would slice an image into > pieces and output html that rendered the complete image as a > table. But it was written in python and my gimp doesn't understand > python-fu. Well I figured that it would be a simple matter to: > > # cd /usr/ports/graphics/gimp; make config > > and tell the the port that I wanted to use python plugins. And then a > simple: > > # make > > would either build the package or _harmlessly_ barf trying. Well, it > did barf but only after it had installed gnome2-vfs-2.12.x.x or > sumsuch and about 5 or six other gnome2-2.12 ports on top of my > working gnome2-2.10.x.x installation. Obviously this rendered the > installed gnome2-2.10 ports on my box inoperable in very difficult to > debug ways. > > Would a CONFLICTS entry in the apropriate make files have stopped the > gnome overbuilds and left my system in a working state? I believe you might have avoided this sort of problem if you had used portinstall (portupgrade) to add the new package. In that case, portupgrade would have detected that newer versions of some of your existing GNOME ports were available, and rather than simply installing the new versions on top of the old, it would have upgraded the already installed ports to the newer versions. > Also please don't get me wrong. I planned to update my laptop from > 5.4-STABLE to 6.0-STABLE later this week. That's really beside the point in this case. The same thing could have happened regardless of which FreeBSD version you were running at the time. > But this problem means that > I'm without my laptop for a client visit and mailserver build which is > not making me very happy. Sorry to hear that. But we've all made our share of these types of mistakes on the path to greater knowledge, wisdom and understanding. :-) > Thanks > -- Chris > > P.S. I glad to post a bug report an fling this email in the direction > of the port maintainers. Heck I think I could even script the process > of updating the Makefiles given enough time. I'm not sure if the behavior you witnessed could rightly be called a "bug", but it certainly could be considered an issue worth addressing. Obviously, running "make install" instead of using portupgrade can be a risky proposition in some cases, and at the very least, the handbook should make this clear. -- Conrad J. Sabatier -- "In Unix veritas"