Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 15:00:30 -0600 From: Scot Hetzel <swhetzel@gmail.com> To: "Michael C. Shultz" <ringworm01@gmail.com> Cc: Craig Boston <craig@yekse.gank.org>, Jiawei Ye <leafy7382@gmail.com>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why does security/amavisd-new depend on db3? Message-ID: <790a9fff0511151300k51a95084sc8f97181d88e1022@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200511151154.32536.ringworm01@gmail.com> References: <c21e92e20511130557g4ad76176l85beb6ceee078886@mail.gmail.com> <c21e92e20511142317t4d192692n28d169aa73e6bbb2@mail.gmail.com> <790a9fff0511151145p6203afc0u73bf2a68ac800d29@mail.gmail.com> <200511151154.32536.ringworm01@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/15/05, Michael C. Shultz <ringworm01@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 November 2005 11:45, Scot Hetzel wrote:
> > On 11/15/05, Jiawei Ye <leafy7382@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 11/15/05, Michael C. Shultz <ringworm01@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > The WITH_BDB_VER=3D42 only needs to be applied to
> > > > databases/p5-BerkeleyDB,
> > > >
> > > > when "portmanager security/amavisd-new" is run ports will build in =
this
> > > > order:
> > > >
> > > > ports/databases/db42 before
> > > > databases/p5-BerkeleyDB before
> > > > security/amavisd-new
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure there is a simple explanaition for the problem if Jiawei w=
ould
> > > > only post something demonstrating how things are going wrong for hi=
m
> > > > instead of merely describing what he thinks is happening.
> > > >
> > > > -Mike
> > >
> > > I am trying to, Mike. Now that xorg-clients has a RUN_DEPENDS on
> > > xterm, which lists xorg-clients as CONFLICT adds a lot to the
> > > frustration :(
> >
> > The problem is rather complex, as there are two problems:
> >
> > 1. When using portupgrade, or portmanager they don't check if a
> > depending port require having a variable set that is defined in these
> > tools configuration files before upgrading an existing port.
>
> Absolutly wrong, definitely for portmanager and likely for
> portupgrade. The real problem is identified further down in this
> thread.
What I was refering to is say you have a Port A, that depends on Port
B. Now Port B can depend on either Port C or Port D depending on if a
WITH_X_VER variable is set.
Now when you do portupgrade/portmanager for Port A, the WITH_X_VER
variable is not set in the tools config file for Port A, but is set
for Port B. This is what causes the wrong dependancy to be listed in
the +CONTENT file for Port A.
> >
> > The work arround for this is to add the variable to /etc/make.conf:
> >
> > .if ${.CURDIR} =3D=3D /usr/ports/databases/p5-BerkleyDB
> > WITH_BDB_VER?=3D42
> > .endif
>
> Not nessesary. here is a sample portmanager output
> with the following in pm-020.conf
>
> databases/p5-BerkeleyDB|WITH_BDB_VER=3D42|
>
> Notice specifically:
>
> make fetch WITH_BDB_VER=3D42
> make WITH_BDB_VER=3D42
>
> If make fetch/clean/install etc is run portmanager does
> apply WITH_BDB_VER=3D42, test for yourself before saying
> such things, please.
>
What I was refering to was the port that depended on this port was
listing it's dependancies wrong in the + CONTENTS file. The use of the
/etc/make.conf entry was a way to get arround this limitation in the
bsd.port.mk's calculation of the dependancies for the port.
Scot
--
DISCLAIMER:
No electrons were mamed while sending this message. Only slightly bruised.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?790a9fff0511151300k51a95084sc8f97181d88e1022>