From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 17 17:20:21 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A451616A468 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:20:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18BCA43D46 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:20:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id jAHHKK1J037216 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:20:20 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.1/Submit) id jAHHKKLD037213; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:20:20 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:20:20 GMT Message-Id: <200511171720.jAHHKKLD037213@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: "Michael C. Shultz" Cc: Subject: Re: ports/89164: [PATCH] /var/db/pkg/{portname}/+CONTENTS files sometimes contain wrong data X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Michael C. Shultz" List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:20:21 -0000 The following reply was made to PR ports/89164; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Michael C. Shultz" To: pav@freebsd.org Cc: bug-followup@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/89164: [PATCH] /var/db/pkg/{portname}/+CONTENTS files sometimes contain wrong data Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 09:02:31 -0800 On Thursday 17 November 2005 09:06, Pav Lucistnik wrote: > > > > > > > Could you send the standalone bsd.port.mk patch to this PR? > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, should have said where it was, gets put > > > > > > into /usr/local/share/portmanager but I'll attach the patch to > > > > > > this message anyways. > > > > > > > > > > So this incorporates your portmanager into bsd.port.mk? I'm afraid > > > > > we can't possibly include this in the official ports tree without > > > > > making portmanager part of base system, do we? > > > > > > > > > > What kind of feedback you're expecting from us, then? > > > > > > > > Most important is that you recognize there is a problem with > > > > how +CONTENTS files are generated. > > > > > > Yes, there is a long standing problem and we're aware of it. Sadly, no > > > workable solution was submitted so far (at least I haven't found any PR > > > filed against it). > > > > Well portmanager in base would solve the problem. I'd say I could > > just pull out the portion that generates the list but portmanager is very > > integrated so that would be a lot of work for no really good reason. > > > > It would be easy to name it something else and disable unneeded > > features however..... > > I think fixing the problem within the scope of existing tools (sh/awk > soup under /usr/ports/Mk) is doable and much more preferable. > > > > > Wether or not you all choose to make portmanager as a part > > > > of the base system is up to you all, I really just wanted to let > > > > you know that when portmanager is installed in a user system > > > > I'd like it to make the adjustment to bsd.ports.mk. If portmanager > > > > is removed I'll make sure it smoothly returns bsd.ports.mk > > > > to a usefull state as part of the deinstall process. > > > > > > You're free to do whatever you want in your software. Just note that > > > you have to patch bsd.ports.mk every time user cvsuped the tree, not > > > only on portmanager install/deinstall. > > > > It checks for make -V PORTMANGER output every time a port is > > upgraded/rebuilt, if no output it reapplies the patch. > > > > The thing to be aware of though is while the patch is in bsd.ports.mk any > > time a port is registered at installation time it will be portmanager > > making the packing list, even if the port is manually installed or with > > portupgrade. > > > > I'd like to leave the behavior that way if it is ok with you, if not I > > can have it revert the patch after each port is installed and registered > > so that whenever portmanager is'nt being used bsd.port.mk is in its > > original state. > > It's really up to you. We don't decide what portmanager should be doing, > you decide that. Thank you, when its ready I'll just do a normal submission on 0.3.6 then. -Mike