Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 14:54:08 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Michael Nottebrock <lofi@freebsd.org> Cc: Kris, Henrik Brix Andersen <henrik@brixandersen.dk>, cvs-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, Pav Lucistnik <pav@freebsd.org>, Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, cvs-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/Mk bsd.port.mk Message-ID: <20070808145408.7mfj7i0jwg48084k@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <46B8B18F.9060402@freebsd.org> References: <200706281553.l5SFr56i099807@repoman.freebsd.org> <20070802181715.46yikycm8gc8g8kk@webmail.leidinger.net> <20070803125410.GB1062@tirith.brixandersen.dk> <200708032144.57558.lofi@freebsd.org> <20070803204215.GA68620@rot26.obsecurity.org> <20070806074318.q9mw6ulngg00gwsw@webmail.leidinger.net> <20070806065634.GA31676@rot26.obsecurity.org> <20070806113855.0fcq213io0www04k@webmail.leidinger.net> <46B7072E.8070307@freebsd.org> <20070807111509.ojm8nc4ao0g080ck@webmail.leidinger.net> <46B84C78.3030009@freebsd.org> <20070807145123.yb3dqjojk08s40wg@webmail.leidinger.net> <46B8B18F.9060402@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Michael Nottebrock <lofi@freebsd.org> (from Tue, 07 Aug 2007 =20
19:53:19 +0200):
> I think we might possibly be talking past each other - let me rephrase
> my concerns about the EXPLICIT_PACKAGE_DEPENDS switch and its functionalit=
y:
>
> - I am concerned about users trying to use that switch *now* to cut down
> time on portupgrade -r and portupgrade -R operations and getting
> inconsistently updated installations as a result. That was the main
> motivation for my initial reply to your message - since there is no
> documentation other than your messages for that switch and since it does
> not print out any warnings either, I thought I had to issue that
> warning. Other than that, I realise this is experimental and off by
> default and as such I don't have a problem with it. Providing the
> missing documentation and make the switch print appropriate warnings
> might still be worthwhile though.
Where should the following (or something similar) be added to?
---snip---
The ports collection now has a knob (EXPLICIT_PACKAGE_DEPENDS) to only =20
register the explicit dependencies. It will allow to speed up =20
"portupgrade -r" and "portupgrade -R" in the future. This is an =20
experimental feature for developers/mainainers only at the moment, as =20
the ports collection has not all necessary explicit dependencies which =20
are needed to make this work smoothly for endusers. If you use it you =20
are not allowed to complain (send patches instead).
---snip---
> - Finally, I am concerned about the amount of work required to keep the
> dependencies up to date. This last concern is admittedly KDE-centric
> (and thus selfish :). The more automated tests or automated dependency
> registration mechanisms there are in place, the less concern there will
> be from my side. Those two quickshots already look pretty good - how
> about trying to integrate them into the pointyhat buildscript?
I improved them a little bit. The objdump part now has some sanity =20
checks and I removed the useless use of grep (awk can do this). The =20
package resolving script is also improved, I use getopt now for the =20
part to specify the PREFIX, and you can specify multiple PREFIX =20
directories. It also has some sanity checks now.
I try to get some time this week to commit them (before commit =20
reviews/suggestions/improvements would be appreciated), until then you =20
can find them at
http://www.Leidinger.net/FreeBSD/scripts/
Bye,
Alexander.
--=20
Have at you!
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?20070808145408.7mfj7i0jwg48084k>