From owner-freebsd-ports Mon May 29 4:24:36 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.sunesi.net (ns1.sunesi.net [196.15.192.194]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 708AD37BBA9 for ; Mon, 29 May 2000 04:24:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nbm@sunesi.net) Received: from nbm by ns1.sunesi.net with local (Exim 3.03 #1) id 12wNdw-00057d-00; Mon, 29 May 2000 13:23:36 +0200 Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 13:23:36 +0200 From: Neil Blakey-Milner To: Patrik Sundberg Cc: Clive Lin , ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Feature request Message-ID: <20000529132335.A19617@mithrandr.moria.org> References: <20000529095445.A86482@radiac.mine.nu> <20000529173145.A17004@host.cer.ntnu.edu.tw> <20000529122403.A87267@radiac.mine.nu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000529122403.A87267@radiac.mine.nu>; from ps@radiac.mine.nu on Mon, May 29, 2000 at 12:24:03PM +0200 Organization: Sunesi Clinical Systems X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 3.3-RELEASE i386 X-URL: http://rucus.ru.ac.za/~nbm/ Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon 2000-05-29 (12:24), Patrik Sundberg wrote: > yes - in a way, but that wasn't what I wrote, I talked about the problem of > new versions using bogus @pkgdep's in their CONTENTS-files. But my proposed > scheme with multilevel /var/db/pkg-entries could maybe fit into an upgrade > scheme aswell - needs to know when to move the +REQUIRED_BY entries and > other stuff too, upgrade is bigger than what I am talking about. I can't see the major difference between "/var/db/pkg/gtk-1.2.3" and "/var/db/pkg/gtk/1.2.3". Why would we want the multilevel /var/db/pkg system again? Neil -- Neil Blakey-Milner Sunesi Clinical Systems nbm@mithrandr.moria.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message