Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 11:29:51 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: RW <list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portupgrade idea [Was: Re: Samba3 Port install fails due to OpenLDAP dependency version problem] Message-ID: <20060622112951.uyauzrh29coggg0o@netchild.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <200606212249.32001.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> References: <1150820585.00550082.1150807801@10.7.7.3> <44998CB5.5070509@icyb.net.ua> <20060621212452.2cfdbdec@Magellan.Leidinger.net> <200606212249.32001.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting RW <list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> (from Wed, 21 Jun 2006 =20 22:49:30 +0100): > 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). Does pkg_add download all missing dependencies at once before =20 installing all missing packages? If not: there should be no change in =20 behavior in pkg_add if we wswitch to explicit dependencies. > By contrast portmanger rebuilds only direct dependencies unless you specif= y > the "pristine" option. I presume that's because it gets its origin depende= ncy > 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 thi= nk > there is a need for the port system to change. Not every port contains an explicit dependency, if it is already =20 satisfied by an implicit dependency. Therefore I assume you may miss =20 to update a port in portmanager. Aside from this, portupgrade uses the dependency information regorded =20 in /var/db/pkg (or INDEX-X, I'm not sure), which is written by the =20 infrastructure of the Ports Collection. I assume the upgrade shell =20 script we got recently in ports (sorry, I can't remember the name) =20 also uses the information provided by the ports collection, so it =20 would benefit too from switching to explicit dependencies. Bye, Alexander. --=20 Selling GoodYear Eagle F1 235/40ZR18, 2x 4mm + 2x 5mm, ~130 EUR you have to pick it up between Germany/Saarland and Luxembourg/Capellen http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060622112951.uyauzrh29coggg0o>