From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 2 05:20:41 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A926316A4DA for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2006 05:20:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx24.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.7]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 31C3643D46 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2006 05:20:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 11183 invoked by uid 399); 2 Sep 2006 05:20:40 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.3?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 2 Sep 2006 05:20:40 -0000 Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 22:20:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton To: B Briggs In-Reply-To: <44EF646D.1060805@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <20060901221612.F1027@qbhto.arg> References: <44EF646D.1060805@bellsouth.net> Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ X-OpenPGP-Key-ID: 0xD5B2F0FB X-message-flag: Outlook -- Not just for spreading viruses anymore! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portmaster patch for testing CONFLICTS and dependency list (Was: 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: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 05:20:41 -0000 On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, B Briggs wrote: > Sorry to have to reply to my own post, but: > B Briggs wrote: > >> Like I said, running for a few days now, and no problems. The main >> difference that I can see is what happens with +REQUIRED_BY with >> portupgrade tools. For instance: >> make deinstall && make install does not seem to update +REQUIRED_BY, >> neither does make deinstall && portmaster /usr/ports/X/Y - there is no >> +REQUIRED_BY after make deinstall. (This is probably because of make). >> The only way to get REQUIRED_BY back is to run pkgdb -F, and I want to >> remove portupgrade. So the question is, is REQUIRED_BY just a portupgrade >> thing? If so, then I'd make a request that portmaster only uses the >> IMMEDIATE requirements in that file, run depends list and build depends >> list or maybe just run depends list. bitstream-vera is listed on a bunch of >> my ports in REQUIRED_BY files, but it's only required in xorg-fonts-ttfonts >> to run, and this comes from the x11/xorg metaport. On the other hand, if >> +REQUIRED_BY is used for packages, then I can understand the recursive >> dependency. Bottom line is that it's much more meaningful to me to see the >> direct dependencies. > > What I meant to say is that all of the +REQUIRED_BY files of the dependant > port are updated in this manner, not that the IMMEDIATE requirements of the > port are placed in its +REQUIRED_BY file. Sorry for any confusion. > > As an example of bitstream-vera, I can remove it using make deinstall. > Firefox lists it as a dependency in +REQUIRED_BY, but it's not listed in > make build-depends-list run-depends-list. > Firefox will run just fine without it (albeit with crummy fonts) Ok, I think I understand your point now, thanks. What portmaster does is compare the contents of the +REQUIRED_BY file for a port with the @pkgdep listings in the rest of the ports, and makes sure that they match up. It does not try (and I don't think it should try) to use any kind of judgment about which are the really important dependencies. hth, Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection