Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:16:54 -0500 (EST) From: Tim Vanderhoek <hoek@hwcn.org> To: "Steven G. Kargl" <kargl@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Cc: Satoshi Asami <asami@FreeBSD.ORG>, eivind@yes.no, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bsd.port.mk bug??? Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980319120052.25493A-100000@james.hwcn.org> In-Reply-To: <199803191538.HAA18364@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 19 Mar 1998, Steven G. Kargl wrote:
> Add the TK_HEADER_CONFLICT variable!!!! The port will not have
> a problem.
You haven't told has how to figure-out which ports need the
TK_HEADER_CONFLICT variable. Eivend did, and he pointed out that
it would be very time consuming. You didn't appreciate what he
said and replied that it was irrelevant. Further, you don't
appreciate what damage hacks _such as_ the one you advocate will
have on the ports system.
Really, this is silly. Look:
1) The ports system does not (_DOES NOT_) work with those files
in place.
2) Yes, some individual ports do, but without testing them, we
can't guarantee that.
3) Anyone who uses the ports system will, at some time, probably
sooner than later, have to remove those files. (Hence it's a
"proactive bug").
4) Nothing, absolutely nothing, can save the user from the fact
that they will have to delete those files. Get used to it.
5) This is one of those few problems where the correct solution
is "ignore it and it will go away". The files have to be
deleted, and the longer they hang around, the more clunk is going
to be accumulated around them.
> 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.
There is no elegant solution. Tcl is a pain in the ass and has
been since day one. The current solution to the general Tcl
problem is the best most elegant (in fact, reasonably so :) one
available, and the sooner everyone is moved to that, the better.
Old tcl configurations, bad tcl configurations, etc. have
generated too many questions, too much tech support, too many
problems, too many surprises, etc. that we simply _cannot_ afford
to be lenient on people who insist on running incompatible
systems.
The way out is NO_IGNORE. There are no unexpected practical side
effects (at the moment) 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."
I'd be happy to see an improvement to the message. I'm a little
leery of the comment "can be safely removed", but this is Asami's
message.
--
Outnumbered? Maybe. Outspoken? Never!
tIM...HOEk
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.3.96.980319120052.25493A-100000>