Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:31:05 +0200 From: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr> To: Cyrille Lefevre <cyrille.lefevre@laposte.net> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, arch@freebsd.org, Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> Subject: Other BSD's (was Re: Cleaning old packages (was: Package system flaws?)) Message-ID: <20020711073105.GB264@lpt.ens.fr> In-Reply-To: <20020711005247.GE82744@gits.dyndns.org> References: <20020709161953.GA69779@lpt.ens.fr> <XFMail.20020709124717.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20020709171417.GA69932@lpt.ens.fr> <20020709231820.GA49510@gits.dyndns.org> <20020711005247.GE82744@gits.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Cyrille Lefevre said on Jul 11, 2002 at 02:52:47: > > That seems rather ambitious, and too drastic a change, to me. What > > I'd like to see is probably more like, the gfoo port needs gtk+ 1.2.6 > > or above, but not gtk+ 2.0 and above (incompatible) and not gtk+ 1.2.5 > > or below (buggy). There should be some way to specify this in the > > makefile of the port, so that any port-management program like > > portupgrade can make use of the information. > > take a look at NetBSD pkg (aka ports) system, they have this kind > of version handling. > > > (3) Automatically generate the +CONTENTS file by first doing a "fake" > > install in a temporary directory (assuming the port honours > > $PREFIX), then moving the contents to their final destination (a la > > gentoo). If your temporary location is on the same filesystem as > > the final one, it won't even take additional disk space, and very > > little additional time. Is there any obvious drawback with doing > > this? > > that's what OpenBSD port system has... Hm, then, why not steal those ideas? It shouldn't be too hard and would solve a few problems. Some other things I like about gentoo are 1. it supports multiple versions of the same port in the tree, and in the case of the latest-and-greatest versions which have potential problems, installing it can be "blocked" by the maintainer in a package.mask file, but it's still available for those who want to try it (they have to edit package.mask first). 2. you can do a "pretend" install, which will tell you which dependencies and version numbers would be installed (ignoring the ones which are already installed on your system), but not do anything. 3. You can fetch all the source tarballs (including dependencies, but excluding what's already installed) in one shot, before building anything. Are there such features in the other BSDs? In principle I think (1) could be done with differently named makefiles for different versions, and (2) could be implemented within the existing ports system. DES pointed out that (3) can be done by his porteasy. On that topic, with all the talk of ambitious new ports systems, does it make sense to go the route of, eg, openpackages (http://www.openpackages.org)? Perhaps they've already thought about many of these issues, and if one wants cross-architecture across FreeBSD, maybe it makes sense to go cross-BSD as well. The project seems to be dead or asleep (last webpage update 31 July 2001). - Rahul To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020711073105.GB264>