Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 23:53:46 -0000 From: Ian Vaudrey <i.vaudrey@cableinet.co.uk> To: "'Jordan K. Hubbard'" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: "'ports@freebsd.org'" <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: Ranlib Message-ID: <01BCE8B3.D1F95660@nemkoltd.nildram.co.uk>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
That'll teach me to be terse. This is a new port that I'm working on, I included @exec ranlib %D/%F in the PLIST because I noticed other ports of libraries do so. I then find that make install followed by pkg_delete works, but make package + pkg_delete + pkg_add + pkg_delete gives an error. I put this down to something (the md5 signature?) being changed by the @exec ranlib line - which is of course run by pkg_add, although the error isn't produced until pkg_delete is run. I can reproduce the problem with at least one existing port, libmalloc-1.18, I haven't tried any others but if I'm right about the cause it'll happen with any port that has an @exec ranlib line in the PLIST. BTW, the refusal of pkg_delete to delete changed files is something that must've seemed a real good idea at the time, but in practice is a pain in the rear. This is the second time it's bitten me, there should be a way to override it. - Ian P.S. So *does* the @exec ranlib line serve any purpose? You of all people will know. On 03 November 1997 22:44, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > The reason I'd like clarification on this is that the @exec line seems to bre > ak > > pkg_delete, so I'd like to lose it if it really isn't necessary. > > It does? pkg_delete is only supposed to run the @unexec lines though. > Are you sure? Can you give me a pointer to a package which does this? > > Thanks. > > Jordan > > On 03 November 1997 22:09, Ian Vaudrey wrote: > I'm working on a port of a library, and there's something I'd like explained > if possible. Some existing library ports include a line @exec ranlib %D/%F in > the PLIST. Why is that? I would've thought that this was unnecessary: ranlib > just builds a symbol table doesn't it? If the library was ranlibbed when it was > built, the copy in the package already has a symbol table - or am I missing > something? > > The reason I'd like clarification on this is that the @exec line seems to break > pkg_delete, so I'd like to lose it if it really isn't necessary. > > - Ian >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?01BCE8B3.D1F95660>