From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 22 12:52:53 2009 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 C42731065676 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:52:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bennett@cs.niu.edu) Received: from mp.cs.niu.edu (mp.cs.niu.edu [131.156.145.41]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DE278FC19 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:52:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bennett@cs.niu.edu) Received: from mp.cs.niu.edu (bennett@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mp.cs.niu.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n6MCqCeW029639; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:52:12 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:52:11 -0500 (CDT) From: Scott Bennett Message-Id: <200907221252.n6MCqBPw029638@mp.cs.niu.edu> To: freebsd-ports-local@be-well.ilk.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Cc: Subject: Re: needing install OpenOffice.org without messing up perl 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: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:52:54 -0000 I wrote: > Finally getting back to this...sigh... > On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:10:54 -0400 Lowell Gilbert > wrote: >>Scott Bennett writes: >> >>> What is the best way to install OpenOffice.org from a package without >>> the installation trying to reinstall perl5.8 over perl5.10? >> >>Get a package that includes them? > > Do you have any suggestions of where to find such a beast? >> >>Short of that, you would have to install the package without >>dependencies. There is a pkg_add option to do this, but the > > Sure, but OOo is so huge and requires so much other stuff >that there is almost certainly something it wants installed that >I do not already have installed. > >>trick comes afterwards, when you have to fix it up to use the >>perl you actually have (perl-after-upgrade(1) might be able to >>handle this, but you have no guarantees.). Or you could just > > Why wouldn't OOo, once installed, simply use whatever were >installed as /usr/local/bin/perl? > It seems to me that the bigger worry it that portmaster may >try to rebuild it whenever a -a option is used. portmanager, OTOH, >has a -u option that might do the job. portupgrade, of course, My mistake. portmanager -u is supposed to accomplish roughly what portmaster -a or portupgrade -a accomplishes. I meant to write portmanager -u -ip packagename rather than what I wrote before. >can have all sorts of things blocked from upgrading by putting the >proper magic into /etc/portupgrade.conf. If only portmaster had >a similar way of doing things. Since so many people now advocate >using either portmanager or portmaster to do general upgrades (-a), >rather than portupgrade -a, I guess portmanager is the only method >available to keep OOo from being rebuilt whenever one of its >dependencies gets upgraded. > >>install both perl versions; they should be able to coexist >>just fine. >> > That would be nice and reasonably simple if it were an option. >Unfortunately, the two versions are incompatible. Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG ********************************************************************** * Internet: bennett at cs.niu.edu * *--------------------------------------------------------------------* * "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good * * objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments * * -- a standing army." * * -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 * **********************************************************************