Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 17:10:48 +0100 From: Chris Rees <crees@physics.org> To: Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, delphij@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: question about "pkg install" Message-ID: <53FB6008.4010408@physics.org> In-Reply-To: <53F84D7C.70101@FreeBSD.org> References: <53F7BE28.2030807@rcn.com> <20140823074040.GY9400@home.opsec.eu> <53F84D7C.70101@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 08/23/14 09:14, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 23/08/2014 08:40, Kurt Jaeger wrote: >>> I have a program (several, actually) I need to install from the >>>> generic package repository. >>>> These programs depend on openldap-client; however I have >>>> openldap-sasl-client installed. In my experience the two have been >>>> interchangeable when compiling from ports. >>>> Is there a way to tell 'pkg install' "Yeah, I know it >>>> says openldap-client, but the same version of >>>> openldap-sasl-client satisfies the dependency"? Or do I just use 'pkg >>>> install -M' and hope everything works? >> I had this issue in the past, too, and am not aware of a solution. > There isn't a good solution for this right now if you're using the > packages from the official FreeBSD repositories. You get the default > dependency chain which is baked into the packages. Which means > openldap-client rather than openldap-sasl-client[*]. > > If you need to change options for various ports, then the best solution > is to compile your own. Give poudriere a go -- it is surprisingly easy > and unstressful to use. Build yourself a repo with your customized > ports in it and away you go. > > We do have plans for improving the ports behaviour in this reguard. > Dependencies based on Provides/Requires/Conflicts should help a lot, as > will sub-packages and dependency version-ranges. This stuff is all on > the roadmap, but there's a lot of work to do to get from here to there, > so don't expect it to all start magically working tomorrow. > > Cheers, > > Matthew > > [*] In this case openldap-client and openldap-sasl-client are clearly > API compatible, since on compilation, it's not a problem to swap from > one to the other. The question when using binary packages is if they > are ABI compatible, which is a whole different kettle of fish. > Hum, I wonder if we couldn't just add sasl support by default? Xin Li, would there be a downside to this? Chris -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?53FB6008.4010408>