Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 12:52:49 +0200 From: Ernst de Haan <ernst@jollem.com> To: Espen Skoglund <esk@ira.uka.de> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Maintainer note: Please commit ports/27453 Message-ID: <20010529125249.A924@c187104187.telekabel.chello.nl> In-Reply-To: <15123.31361.988389.672402@i30nb2.ira.uka.de>; from esk@ira.uka.de on Tue, May 29, 2001 at 12:31:29PM %2B0200 References: <15122.34649.427846.394028@i30nb2.ira.uka.de> <15123.31361.988389.672402@i30nb2.ira.uka.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hey Espen, Well, there may be a 4th alternative. And it's a fairly creative one IMO. From my understanding you have 2 ports that both install the same file. Why not change both ports so that the wrecked file is renamed, and then (sym|hard)link to either one of the files? Example: Old situation: Port A installs file ${PREFIX}/x Port B installs file ${PREFIX}/x New situation: Port A installs file ${PREFIX}/Ax and links ${PREFIX}/x -> ${PREFIX}/Ax Port B installs file ${PREFIX}/Bx and links ${PREFIX}/x -> ${PREFIX}/Bx Deinstallation will however still be an issue. One other alternative would be to create a separate port for that single file. But that smells like a Bad Idea(TM). Hmmm. Just trying to think creative ;) /Ernst Espen Skoglund wrote: > [Espen Skoglund] > > The following PR fixes an mtree problem with devel/arm-elf-gcc295: > > > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/27453 > > Uhm, wait a minute, it seems that the file added to the plist > (bin/arm-elf-c++filt) was also part of arm-elf-binutils. What should > one do when there are conflicts like this? Should I: > > a) Ignore the file in the gcc plist. This will somehow work since > gcc depends on binutils anyway. It will create errorlogs on > bento, though, and it seems like the wrong thing to do since it > will possibly leave you with files in the system which are > unaccounted for. > > b) Add it to the gcc plist, remove it from the binutils plist, and > manually remove the file from the file system after make install > in arm-elf-binutils. Since arm-elf-gcc295 is probably the only > port which will ever need this file, this seems like a working > solution. It does, however, create a few problems if you > reinstall binutils after gcc has been installed (i.e., file will > be deleted). > > c) Have the file in both plists. Easiest solution. Will ``break'' > binutils if gcc is removed from the system. If gcc is removed > on the other hand, there is probably no other port using > binutils anyway. > > Comments? > > > eSk > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message > -- Ernst de Haan Java Architect Jollem Information Technology "Come to me all who are weary and burdened and I will give you rest" -- Jesus Christ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010529125249.A924>