Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 06:09:42 -0800 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@FreeBSD.org> To: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: HEADS UP: New bsd.*.mk changes Message-ID: <20040120140942.GD94636@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <400D344B.6010403@fillmore-labs.com> References: <1074590694.85583.20.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <400D2939.5090203@fillmore-labs.com> <20040120133020.GB94636@FreeBSD.org> <400D344B.6010403@fillmore-labs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:59:39PM +0100, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
> Eivind Eklund wrote:
> >improvement). And I thought it was supposed to be unique, while it seems
> >it isn't. That said, I think the name LATEST_LINK should be changed
> >(possibly
> >not right now) if LATEST_LINK is to be used this way.
> >
> >Also, I don't see why LATEST_LINK would always be unique - instead, it
> >looks to
> >me as if there could be conflicts between different ports on this (while I
> >thought
> >we defined that there shouldn't be for PORTNAME).
>
> The problem with the current solution is that renaming OPTIONSFILE is not
> easy, because ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PORTNAME} is somewhat hardcoded in bsd.port.mk
> now. I can change PORT_DBDIR, but have to accept ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PORTNAME},
> which is bad. Perhaps we should have
> OPTIONSFILE?=${PORT_DBDIR}/${LATEST_LINK}.options,
> which is easier to change.
I don't think this particular name is usable right now - we "need" something
that falls back to ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PORTNAME}, as the OPTIONS system is now
in production, ports have started to use it[1], and people will have started
storing options in just a few hours. Unless we can resolve this within
those few hours, we need to have the same ultimate fallback.
[1] Well, only security/snort so far, so I'm going to ask the committer to
back that out until the present hoopla is sorted out.
> LATEST_LINK should be unique for each package, and I guess if two ports
> have the same LATEST_LINK they CONFLICT anyway.
Whether they conflict is really immaterial - they shouldn't share options.
> But I don't care if we use LATEST_LINK or something else, as long as it
> is easily changeable in the case of conflicts.
PORTNAME? ;-)
Eivind.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040120140942.GD94636>