From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 24 03:15:13 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73A2B1065681 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 03:15:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rnoland@FreeBSD.org) Received: from gizmo.2hip.net (gizmo.2hip.net [64.74.207.195]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37E468FC1E for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 03:15:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rnoland@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [192.168.2.107] (c-71-56-39-94.hsd1.ga.comcast.net [71.56.39.94]) (authenticated bits=0) by gizmo.2hip.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id m9O3F6RL074432 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:15:06 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from rnoland@FreeBSD.org) From: Robert Noland To: Josh Rickmar In-Reply-To: <55557.67.177.142.45.1224816084.squirrel@ssl.eumx.net> References: <53980.67.177.142.45.1224810884.squirrel@ssl.eumx.net> <49012D63.8020201@math.missouri.edu> <61973.67.177.142.45.1224815151.squirrel@ssl.eumx.net> <1224815453.1624.0.camel@wombat.2hip.net> <55557.67.177.142.45.1224816084.squirrel@ssl.eumx.net> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-w7X0K9an3A9wsUL5B+5w" Organization: FreeBSD Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:15:00 -0400 Message-Id: <1224818100.1624.3.camel@wombat.2hip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_PBL, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL,RDNS_DYNAMIC autolearn=no version=3.2.5 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on gizmo.2hip.net Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Concern about using pkg_delete -r X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 03:15:13 -0000 --=-w7X0K9an3A9wsUL5B+5w Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 22:41 -0400, Josh Rickmar wrote: > On Thu, October 23, 2008 10:30 pm, Robert Noland wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 22:25 -0400, Josh Rickmar wrote: > > > >> On Thu, October 23, 2008 10:05 pm, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > >> > >>> Josh Rickmar wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> I'm hoping that this list covers port tools as well as the usual > >>>> discussions about the actual ports. If not, please CC this to the > >>>> proper list. > >>>> > >>>> I want to use pkg_delete to remove an installed port, but also want > >>>> to remove its orphaned dependencies along with it. After looking at > >>>> the pkg_delete(1) man page, the -r flag seems to be the option to > >>>> use for this job. My concern, though, is about the wording: > >>>> > >>>>> In addition to specified packages, delete all > >>>>> packages that depend on those packages as well. > >>>> > >>>> Does this mean that if I pkg_delete -r pkgA, than pkgB (a > >>>> dependency) will be removed with it, even though it is dependency of > >>>> pkgC? Or is pkg_delete (or pkg_deinstall) smart enough to > >>>> understand this dependency and keep pkgB installed? > >>>> > >>>> If in this scenario pkgB would be deleted, should an extra warning > >>>> be added to the man page so that users know that using this flag > >>>> could potentially break their other ports? > >>> > >>> I think you have the dependency relationship the wrong way around. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> If you do "pkg_delete -r pkgA", and pkgA is a dependency of pkgB (not > >>> the other way around as you have it), then pkgB will be deleted. > >>> > >> > >> Ah, my bad. Yeah, after re-reading the wording it seems that is the > >> case. > >> > >> What about for pkg_deinstall (part of portupgrade)? According to its > >> man page, it has two options, --recursive (-r) and --upward-recursive > >> (-R). > >> Maybe it's just a little bit late, but what /exactly/ is the differenc= e? > >> It sounds like the --upward-recursive option would be better called > >> --downward-recursive, since it will remove the ports/packages "below" > >> it. > > > > Semantically, it is an inverted tree... i.e. the root is at the top. > > > > > > robert. >=20 > OK, I guess that makes sense. >=20 > > > >> So, if that is the case, would pkg_deinstall -R pkgA remove pkgB or > >> not? > >> > > >=20 > Well, I tested using pkg_deinstall -rRn, and if I were to remove the -n > flag, it would be uninstalling ports all the way down to gettext. Not > good. So, it would be removing 'pkgB' with this option. Any way to > prevent this? The removal of ports which are required by some other port will fail. robert. --=-w7X0K9an3A9wsUL5B+5w Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEABECAAYFAkkBPbQACgkQM4TrQ4qfROModgCbBR30MRfzxvItSGolJQI3NVdq vtcAni5jNVQnJEtMGoCRThdc+cP56Ceo =ySIe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-w7X0K9an3A9wsUL5B+5w--