From owner-freebsd-ports  Thu Mar 19 07:35:31 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA05480
          for freebsd-ports-outgoing; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 07:35:31 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (troutmask.apl.washington.edu [128.95.76.54])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA05471;
          Thu, 19 Mar 1998 07:35:28 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from kargl@troutmask.apl.washington.edu)
Received: (from kargl@localhost)
	by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.8.8/8.8.5) id HAA18364;
	Thu, 19 Mar 1998 07:38:25 -0800 (PST)
From: "Steven G. Kargl" <kargl@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
Message-Id: <199803191538.HAA18364@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: bsd.port.mk bug???
In-Reply-To: <199803190526.OAA01265@bubble.didi.com> from Satoshi Asami at "Mar 19, 98 02:26:39 pm"
To: asami@FreeBSD.ORG (Satoshi Asami)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 07:38:25 -0800 (PST)
Cc: eivind@yes.no, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL32 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

According to Satoshi Asami:
>  * Suppose I have a program foobar, and the person who wrote foobar
>  * decided to name a file tk.h.  Now, suppose I install foobar in /usr/local
>  * and tk.h ends up in /usr/local/include.  Furthermore, foobar needs 
>  * tk.h to run (it may contain config info).   Removing tk.h is not a 
>  * good thing.
> 
> This is ridiculous.  What's going to happen if some port's configure
> script finds it and thinks it's the tk header?

Add the TK_HEADER_CONFLICT variable!!!! The port will not have
a problem.

> Steve, we have explored many possibilities before finalizing on the
> current solution.  (No, we didn't actually consider adding an extra
> variable to every port's Makefile that requires tcl or tk.  That's too
> expensive, besides it doesn't help prevent the source of the biggest
> headache, i.e., port submissions from people who have obsolete files
> on their system.)

I'm sure you did investigate many alternatives.  I guess I've 
been spoiled by your normal elegant solutions to these kinds of
problems.  IMHO, completely disabling the ports tree is not
an elegant solution.

> Please let's not waste any more time on this.  If you have a problem
> with having to remove a couple of files so the whole system can stay
> manageable and work for most of the users, then I'm sorry but the
> ports system is not for you.

You're right I've wasted too much time trying to improve the
system.  Can you at least change the message to something like

IGNORE= ": You have an old file \(${file}\) that could cause problems
for some ports to compile.  \(${file}\) can safely be removed."

-- 
Steve

finger kargl@troutmask.apl.washington.edu
http://troutmask.apl.washington.edu/~clesceri/kargl.html

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message