Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 12:57:39 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Simon J Mudd <sjmudd@pobox.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: gv port builds but fails - needing libpng.so.4 (?) Message-ID: <20011126125739.A17576@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0111260839020.1856-100000@phoenix.ea4els.ampr.org>; from sjmudd@pobox.com on Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 08:50:35AM %2B0100 References: <20011125171037.A97187@xor.obsecurity.org> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0111260839020.1856-100000@phoenix.ea4els.ampr.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 08:50:35AM +0100, Simon J Mudd wrote: > > The easiest way to do this is probably portupgrade -r >=20 > I think my point is this: > - why isn't this enforced by the ports collection? Not possible. > - why is it currenlty allowed Why is it allowed to do rm -rf /? > - why do the ports collection allow you to have two "conflicting" ports= =20 > installed at the same time > - this really causes the problem I've encountered. > - ideally you shouldn't be allowed to uninstall/upgrade a port > on which other ports depend, unless as you say you upgrade the > dependent ports too. I think this information should be available > at make install or make deinstall time. Yeah, there are lots of things that are true in an ideal world..yes, this is arguably a deficiency in the ports collection and it will be fixed someday. In the meantime just work with the proper tools - it only takes minimum effort to update ports if you go about it the right way. > Using pkg_tree, I've found that my current system is "a real mess". I've= =20 > not been using FreeBSD that long, since 3.4-RELEASE, and even in that tim= e=20 > I've seen several problems of this type. >=20 > In fact while I have 207 packages installed in my system I currently have= =20 > 240 unsatisfied dependencies (as witnessed by > 'pkg_tree | grep unknown | wc -l'). >=20 > I'm not sure whether I should take this to mean that I shouldn't follow= =20 > -STABLE, or quite what, but it does concern me that other packages I=20 > have installed may be in the same situation. If they are libraries and= =20 > only minor version is different then the may be no problem. >=20 > This is one aspect where I think rpm is much better. Okay, don't get me started on all the ways rpm is much worse :) Kris --W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8AqhlWry0BWjoQKURAvf1AJ9n92ogBpcFcmhFEvKp8Y6PPtxLTQCgq5Yl qp+2DoPGtZ8ZjphOzTYkFfw= =BC9h -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011126125739.A17576>