Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 12:48:44 -0600 From: Craig Boston <craig@yekse.gank.org> To: "Michael C. Shultz" <ringworm01@gmail.com> Cc: Jiawei Ye <leafy7382@gmail.com>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why does security/amavisd-new depend on db3? Message-ID: <20051115184843.GB36868@nowhere> In-Reply-To: <200511150944.26278.ringworm01@gmail.com> References: <c21e92e20511130557g4ad76176l85beb6ceee078886@mail.gmail.com> <200511142259.45090.ringworm01@gmail.com> <20051115143721.GA36868@nowhere> <200511150944.26278.ringworm01@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 09:44:25AM -0800, Michael C. Shultz wrote: > Anyways, the extra, unnessesary and INCORRECT entries in +CONTENTS would > indeed have caused portmanager problems a short while ago. Portmanager used > to only use the +CONTENTS file to determine dependencies and in this case > that would definitely cause trouble. It bites portupgrade users too, since it builds its database mostly out of the +CONTENTS files. Sometimes things get far enough out of whack that not even pkgdb -F can help. > Bottom line is portmanager 0.3.5 should be able to build > security/amavisd-new as intended and by my own tests it does. My > understanding of the bsd.ports.mk language is poor, but 5027 - 5034 > look suspicious. > > Probably no one cares but I can't think of a single good reason to > transvers dependent port's dependencies when adding dependencies to > +CONTENTS. Don't quote me on this as it's pure extrapolation, but I think the reason may have to do with binary packages. As far as I can remember, they have always listed _ALL_ dependencies in the top level package, presumably to make it easier to figure out everything you need to install one without having to recursively extract things. (?) If that's the case, they would have to be listed in +CONTENTS for pkg_create -b to work. There may be a better way to gather the information though, perhaps by looking at the package database to see what is actually installed rather than re-generating the list every time. Perhaps one of the portmgrs can help clarify the reasons for the situation? > The fact they do should no longer cause portmanager troubles but if > Jiawei is to be believed it looks like portupgrade might be being > negatively effected by these unnessesary and incorrect entries.. I haven't tried it but it might could still cause problems if some of the ports had been manually installed. Craig
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051115184843.GB36868>