Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 21:57:54 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Recent bsd.port.mk changes Message-ID: <20030418045754.GA94741@rot13.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <1050640352.58286.22.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> References: <1050640352.58286.22.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--d6Gm4EdcadzBjdND Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 12:32:32AM -0400, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > Kris, I don't think I agree with one of the changes that went in to > bsd.port.mk today. I'm trying to do an upgrade of libgtkhtml from 2.2.2 > to 2.2.3. When I do such things, I install the new port to an alternate > PREFIX while keeping the old version around. With the recent changes, I > can no longer do this. The ports system informs me that: >=20 > =3D=3D=3D> Installing for libgtkhtml-2.2.3 > =3D=3D=3D> libgtkhtml-2.2.3 is already installed - perhaps an older vers= ion? > If so, you may wish to ``make deinstall'' and install > this port again by ``make reinstall'' to upgrade it properly. > If you really wish to overwrite the old port of libgtkhtml-2.2.3 > without deleting it first, set the variable "FORCE_PKG_REGISTER" > in your environment or the "make install" command line. > *** Error code 1 >=20 > When, in fact, it is not installed. libgtkhtml-2.2.2 is installed. The > change in question is at line 2879 (the check to see if another port > with this ports origin is installed [ports/48646]). Yes, I can set > FORCE_PKG_REGISTER, but when I go to make deinstall, it now removes > _both_ ports. I'd like to request this, and possibly the smarter make > deinstall be backed out. Hmm..but previously if you had libgtkhtml-2.2.3 installed (i.e. the same version) this would also have failed. The major benefit of this change is that it prevents people from installing one copy of the port over an older version, thereby screwing up their /var/db/pkg and possibly leaving orphan files lying around. I think that is important enough that it should stay in, in some form. In your case since the PREFIX is different they don't actually conflict so one might argue that it should be allowed. I suppose that's something that could be checked in bsd.port.mk by extracting the prefix for the existing package from the contents file and comparing to PREFIX. Kris --d6Gm4EdcadzBjdND Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+n4XRWry0BWjoQKURAkofAKCYOkGS0mEhvuTwprHk+tt6AqYsKwCgvd7R oxqrDRTlZQurdyK6wBDPemY= =7FkI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --d6Gm4EdcadzBjdND--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030418045754.GA94741>