From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 3 23:50:04 2015 Return-Path: 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 56A09AED; Sun, 3 May 2015 23:50:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hermes.heuristicsystems.com.au (hermes.heuristicsystems.com.au [203.41.22.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hermes.heuristicsystems.com.au", Issuer "Heuristic Systems Type 4 Host CA" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D74B31C2C; Sun, 3 May 2015 23:50:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.0.5.3] (ewsw01.hs [10.0.5.3]) (authenticated bits=0) by hermes.heuristicsystems.com.au (8.14.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id t43NWkao026655 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 4 May 2015 09:32:52 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from dewayne.geraghty@heuristicsystems.com.au) Message-ID: <5546B03B.9050604@heuristicsystems.com.au> Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 09:33:15 +1000 From: Dewayne Geraghty User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matthew Seaman , freebsd-ports-local@be-well.ilk.org CC: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Broken _DEPENDS logic References: <20150503043317.73FD0DAD@hub.freebsd.org> <44a8xlqv8x.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> <55469545.9000404@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <55469545.9000404@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 May 2015 23:50:04 -0000 On 4/05/2015 7:38 AM, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 03/05/2015 21:08, Lowell Gilbert wrote: >> 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. > You're correct as far as the ports goes, but not when you're dealing > with precompiled packages. Once you've built the package, the > dependency on the specific version of the other port is baked into it. > That's something which is likely to change in the not too distant > future, but it's going to mean some fundamental changes in the ports in > order to bring about. > > At the moment, therefore, the advice for pkg users when you want to make > customizations like eg. using a different version of postfix is to set > up your onw instance of poudriere and build your own. > > Cheers, > > Matthew > > I read Lowell's issue as indirectly suggesting an enhancement to the packaging system. For the sake of the discussion, lets assume a dependency hierarchy of: X depends upon Y. While building X, rather than assume the prefix for Y, and test for the existence of a file installed by Y (and this is very often used), use pkg to ascertain the dependency's origin and lookup the prefix for Y, prior to the test. And please can we not assume that everyone is using poudriere. Regards, Dewayne.