From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun May  3 20:32:32 2015
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95C8E464
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Sun,  3 May 2015 20:32:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mx5.roble.com (mx5.roble.com [206.40.34.5])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client CN "mx5.roble.com", Issuer "mx5.roble.com" (not verified))
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87E3D1752
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Sun,  3 May 2015 20:32:32 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 3 May 2015 13:32:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com>
To: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-ports-local@be-well.ilk.org>
cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Broken _DEPENDS logic
In-Reply-To: <44a8xlqv8x.fsf@lowell-desk.lan>
References: <20150503043317.73FD0DAD@hub.freebsd.org>
 <44a8xlqv8x.fsf@lowell-desk.lan>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (BSF 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 May 2015 20:32:32 -0000

>> Found why mailman is trying (and failing) to reinstall postfix and it
>> appears to be a bug in other ports as well.
>>
>> Shouldn't these ports be querying the pkg db rather than checking for a
>> particular file, particularly when the file is incorrectly specified?
>
> Have you read the Porters' Handbook?

Not being a port maintainer, no.

> But, generally, the answer to your question is "no," becuase it is often
> the case that more than one port can serve as a dependency for another
> port. Your suggestion amounts to saying that only one port can satisfy a
> dependency for another port, which is not the case.

Not sure I understand the explanation but to clarify this specific case:
the mail/mailman port's dependency on mail/postfix fails because it look
for an installed file at a specific path without regards for the postfix
port's INST_BASE option.

Roger