Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 22:49:30 +0100 From: RW <list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portupgrade idea [Was: Re: Samba3 Port install fails due to OpenLDAP dependency version problem] Message-ID: <200606212249.32001.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> In-Reply-To: <20060621212452.2cfdbdec@Magellan.Leidinger.net> References: <1150820585.00550082.1150807801@10.7.7.3> <44998CB5.5070509@icyb.net.ua> <20060621212452.2cfdbdec@Magellan.Leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 20:24, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> (Wed, 21 Jun 2006 21:15:17 +0300): > > It still would be very nice to introduce a concept of "immediate > > dependencies" to portupgrade tools (or maybe to ports/packages in > > general ???) and have some options to work only on those. > > Completely fictional example: > > portupgrade is the wrong place to do this. We "just" need to switch > from implicit dependencies to explicit dependencies in the ports > collection. My understanding is that portupgrade gets its dependency information from the the package database, which records full recursive dependencies (for the benifit of pkg_add). By contrast portmanger rebuilds only direct dependencies unless you specify the "pristine" option. I presume that's because it gets its origin dependency information from the port make targets, and uses the package database for version information. Given that Portmanger is already doing this, could you explain why you think there is a need for the port system to change.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200606212249.32001.list-freebsd-2004>