From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 25 16:29:35 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1952DAEB; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 16:29:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mk-outboundfilter-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-outboundfilter-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.37]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B5743D81; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 16:29:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Trace: 120159358/mk-outboundfilter-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com/PIPEX/$ON_NET_AUTH_ACCEPTED/pipex-temporary-group/81.170.79.154/-4.0/crees@physics.org X-SBRS: -4.0 X-RemoteIP: 81.170.79.154 X-IP-MAIL-FROM: crees@physics.org X-SMTP-AUTH: bayofrum@uwclub.net X-MUA: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD i386; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 X-IP-BHB: Once X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvcIAPBj+1NRqk+aPGdsb2JhbABagw2IXclTgx8BgSEXBQEBAQE4NoQEAQU4HiIRCxgJFg8JAwIBAgEnChQGAQwIAQEXiCvACxeJfy+FJYRMAQSjYBiRPDyCfgEBAQ X-IPAS-Result: AvcIAPBj+1NRqk+aPGdsb2JhbABagw2IXclTgx8BgSEXBQEBAQE4NoQEAQU4HiIRCxgJFg8JAwIBAgEnChQGAQwIAQEXiCvACxeJfy+FJYRMAQSjYBiRPDyCfgEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,397,1406588400"; d="scan'208";a="120159358" X-IP-Direction: OUT Received: from 81-170-79-154.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com (HELO pegasus.bayofrum.net) ([81.170.79.154]) by smtp.pipex.tiscali.co.uk with ESMTP; 25 Aug 2014 17:29:32 +0100 Received: from [192.168.1.105] (nova.bayofrum.net [192.168.1.105]) by pegasus.bayofrum.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E6E97615AA; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 17:29:28 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <53FB6008.4010408@physics.org> Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 17:10:48 +0100 From: Chris Rees User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD i386; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matthew Seaman , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, delphij@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: question about "pkg install" References: <53F7BE28.2030807@rcn.com> <20140823074040.GY9400@home.opsec.eu> <53F84D7C.70101@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <53F84D7C.70101@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-bayofrum-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-bayofrum-MailScanner-ID: E6E97615AA.AC302 X-bayofrum-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-bayofrum-MailScanner-From: crees@physics.org X-Spam-Status: No X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 16:29:35 -0000 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.