Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 21:03:34 -0800 From: James Long <james_mapson@umpquanet.com> To: David Wolfskill <david@catwhisker.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: xorg-clients conflicts with xterm (patch) Message-ID: <20051116050334.GA93276@ns.museum.rain.com> In-Reply-To: <20051116035633.GU69015@bunrab.catwhisker.org> References: <20051116032616.GA92903@ns.museum.rain.com> <20051116033245.GT69015@bunrab.catwhisker.org> <20051116034910.GA93001@ns.museum.rain.com> <20051116035633.GU69015@bunrab.catwhisker.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 07:56:33PM -0800, David Wolfskill wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 07:49:10PM -0800, James Long wrote:
> >
> > ===> xorg-clients-6.8.2_1 depends on package: xterm>0 - not found
> >
> > and investigated the Makefile to find why the odd package
> > name of "xterm>0".
>
> Looks as if the thing to do would have been to run "pkgdb -F" and delete
> that dependency.
Again, at that time, xorg-clients was not installed, thus
that dependency was not in the package database. Notice
that the portupgrade output with that "xterm>0" line is
a "portupgrade -N" invocation, to install a new port, not
to upgrade an existing port. I always welcome and try to
learn from corrections, but I can't see that pkgdb -F would
be able to remove a dependency for a port that is not (yet)
installed.
That dependency is actually verbatim in the Makefile, I quote:
RUN_DEPENDS= xterm>0:${PORTSDIR}/x11/xterm
Hence my patch. Or if the above syntax is correct, perhaps
someone can point me towards an explanation of the syntax found
in that RUN_DEPENDS= line for my edification. Once I removed
the ">0" from the Makefile, and since portupgrade had already
built (but failed to install) xorg-clients, I was able to
simply "make install" in the xorg-clients ports directory,
and all the previously-built stuff got installed, along
with xterm-206_1.
I'm just asking someone (my original post cc'ed $MAINTAINER)
to review the accuracy of that RUN_DEPENDS line. portupgrade
certainly seems to parse the ">0" as part of the port name,
rather than as some sort of conditional operator.
Regards,
Jim
>
> Peace,
> david
> --
> David H. Wolfskill david@catwhisker.org
> Prediction is difficult, especially if it involves the future. -- Niels Bohr
>
> See http://www.catwhisker.org/~david/publickey.gpg for public key.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051116050334.GA93276>