Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 05:25:29 -0800 From: Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com> To: "A.J. 'Fonz' van Werven" <freebsd@skysmurf.nl> Cc: "ports@freebsd.org" <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Update of security/gnupg fails because of conflict with security/dirmngr Message-ID: <5479C949.6050108@rawbw.com> In-Reply-To: <20141129125631.GA50784@spectrum.skysmurf.nl> References: <5479B154.9090606@rawbw.com> <20141129125631.GA50784@spectrum.skysmurf.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/29/2014 04:56, A.J. 'Fonz' van Werven wrote: > Yes, that sort of thing seems to be happening a lot lately. I found > out that it often helps if you temporarily uninstall the offending > port, then install the other one and finally reinstall the uninstalled > one. Or in your case: 1. delete dirmngr (remember if it takes anything > else with it!) 2. install gnupg; 3. reinstall dirmngr again (as well > as anything that got deleted with it). Hope that helps. However, > considering that this sort of thing occurs commonly these days, I > suspect there must be something wrong in the ports infrastructure. > What I also find somewhat mindboggling is how ports are built, staged > and packaged entirely, only THEN to discover there's a conflict. > Couldn't that have been detected way earlier? AvW I think, what typically happens is that one package depends on another, and that dependency package is just imported in the dependent one, while keeping the same file names installed. In this case it looks like gnupg requires dirmngr, and parts of it were imported into gnupg, while dirmngr keeps living its own life in the system. This is really an evil practice, but people do this, usually without causing conflicts. Chrome has a whole lot of packages included, and also mplayer has. In this case gnupg port should rename offending files, nothing else would solve the problem. Yuri
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5479C949.6050108>