Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 21:32:19 +0000 From: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> To: Walter Hurry <walterhurry@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Issue with the pkgng repository Message-ID: <50BE6BE3.8050606@infracaninophile.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <k9lnqr$oc5$2@ger.gmane.org> References: <k9lnqr$oc5$2@ger.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigDA9E09B4BB4E7DBE2FE4BBEF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 04/12/2012 20:52, Walter Hurry wrote: > I have another minor issue with pkgng: >=20 > Say package foo-1.0 depends on bar-1.0. Then bar-1.0 is upgraded to=20 > version 1.1. >=20 > So a new package bar-1.1 is built (from the port), and replaces bar-1.0= =20 > in the repository. The repository database is then updated using 'pkg=20 > repo'.=20 >=20 > Now the repository database is out of whack: It still thinks foo-1.0=20 > depends on bar-1.0 (the deps table in the compressed repo.sqlite databa= se=20 > - i.e. repo.txz in the repository). >=20 > Admittedly the packages will still install (from the repository in=20 > question) on another machine, but nevertheless it doesn't seem quite=20 > right. >=20 > One workaround is to re-create the foo package (plus any others dependi= ng=20 > on bar) and refresh the repository, but is this an omission? This is a flaw in your package repository maintenance process. If bar-1.0 is upgraded to bar-1.1 then you should rebuild all the packages that have a direct dependency on it, and possibly many of the packages that have an indirect dependency too. I say 'rebuild' because that is generally what happens in practice, even though in many cases you could probably get away with simply repackaging everything that requires bar-1.= x. Not always though, and it's hard to tell the difference programatically in the general case. If, for example, bar-1.0 provides libbar.so.1 and bar-1.1 provides libbar.so.2 then full rebuilds are definitely required for anything that ultimately links against libbar.so. And to discover that 100% accurately, you have to examine the dynamic linkage characteristics of every ELF file in every package with bar-1.x somewhere in its dependency tree. (No, LIB_DEPENDS cannot be relied on for this) That's just once example reason why you might need a full rebuild. There are many more. Which is why it is standard to just punt and rebuild everything that requires bar-1.x. Tracking this sort of stuff manually is pretty tedious. Which is why things like poudriere and tinderbox exist; so you can automate. Cheers, Matthew --=20 Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey JID: matthew@infracaninophile.co.uk --------------enigDA9E09B4BB4E7DBE2FE4BBEF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlC+a+MACgkQ8Mjk52CukIwPrgCdGdAsNhTM373ime9RquJluLoc LmgAn05omyX5xgLdeiD0OqOdcr8I9rH0 =t6H1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigDA9E09B4BB4E7DBE2FE4BBEF--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50BE6BE3.8050606>