Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 00:27:12 +0300 From: Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: emulation@freebsd.org, paul beard <paulbeard@mac.com> Subject: Re: having some trouble with linux-pango Message-ID: <83622623@srv.sem.ipt.ru> In-Reply-To: <20060111165307.lz00xrvhw8w8okok@netchild.homeip.net> (Alexander Leidinger's message of "Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:53:07 %2B0100") References: <EBA3AA9B-EBD3-4674-B558-F5D298B84506@mac.com> <20060110202542.7e049c4c@Magellan.Leidinger.net> <DF18B53D-B1AF-486C-A55A-84F248118634@mac.com> <20060111095954.c710azp5c0wwwkcg@netchild.homeip.net> <71140889@srv.sem.ipt.ru> <20060111165307.lz00xrvhw8w8okok@netchild.homeip.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:53:07 +0100 Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> wrote: > > Yes, there is a PR on the matter: > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/85254 > > > > Pay attention to followups. > The linux X11 port was modifying a file which belongs to the linux_base port. > The value it added was fixed (the path to the linux X11 lib directory) and > doesn't result in any breakage when added in the linux_base port. > Modifying the contents of a file which does belong to another port results in > warnings because of a changed MD5 sum when the file is deinstalled without > the removal of the corresponding line by the port which added the line. > Files from other ports shouldn't be touched if not absolutely necessary. > Additionally the linux X11 port not only added one directory, it generated > the file completely at install time (so it was possible to add a directory, > the user may not wanted to add), but didn't resurrected the original file at > deinstall time. > In this case it isn't necessary to touch the file if the directory is > included in the file at installation time of the linux_base port. > Adding the entry to the file in the linux_base port was easy and solved 2 > problems (adding and removing the entry to/from the file). It would have > been possible to write code which does it correctly, but you have to > consider all possible cases. This wouldn't have been as easy as the current > solution, and you don't have to fear to have missed a case. It also solved > an "distraction" (the warning of a changed file on upgrade). As for me, I agree with you... > Summary: doing it the way it is is better than to do it the way it was > before. ...and understand that "the way it was before" means old linux x11 port that was changing the file... ..but don't quite understand what did you mean saying "the way it is". There are two ways: 1. The linux_base-rh9 port should be patched according to the PR. 2. Don't patch both, don't recommend using the linux_base-rh9 (and others) and answer on questions here? I.e. leave it as is. So far we do have the latter. Is it "the way it is" that you meant? [some time later] I wrote those words, but now think they are not very polite. Let me rephrase my thought. I'm very thankful for you and trevor@ for your contribution to FreeBSD. But we have two maintainers/committers with polar points of view on the matter. Something should be done. BTW, what if to print a message like this at after-install time for the linux X11 port: ----- Note that you may need to add a line "/usr/X11R6/lib" to the file ${LINUXBASE}/etc/ld.so.conf" manually (if you don't one) and then run ${LINUXBASE}/sbin/ldconfig. ----- I know that it won't be very helpful but at least we tried... WBR -- bsam
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?83622623>