From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Sep 5 20:15:36 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7906D1065992; Sun, 5 Sep 2010 20:15:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rfarmer@predatorlabs.net) Received: from mail-vw0-f54.google.com (mail-vw0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B7F48FC12; Sun, 5 Sep 2010 20:15:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vws7 with SMTP id 7so3155424vws.13 for ; Sun, 05 Sep 2010 13:15:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.126.208 with SMTP id d16mr2249245vcs.206.1283717732368; Sun, 05 Sep 2010 13:15:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.200.8 with HTTP; Sun, 5 Sep 2010 13:15:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [71.1.133.114] In-Reply-To: <4C83D04E.4050000@freebsd.org> References: <4C83D04E.4050000@freebsd.org> Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2010 13:15:32 -0700 Message-ID: From: Rob Farmer To: vwe@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, bug-followup@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/150265: [patch] print/ghostscript8 disable bogus port conflicts in make release X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2010 20:15:36 -0000 On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 10:15, wrote: > > Rob, > > IMO the question is not if the problem _can_ be solved in the base build > system. I doubt you'll find many src committers willing to break other > peoples machines by using DISABLE_CONFLICTS as a general problem solver. > > It may well work for your machine and you're free to do that. > > The maintainer of ghostscript8 may check the issue but is free to close the > PR as WONTFIX (I suspect that will most likely happen). > > Instead of filing a PR for such problems, a discussion on our fine mailing > lists might be good. > > Thanks! > [adding a mailing list per your suggestion] I think you are misunderstanding the issue here. This is not a ghostscript issue and the maintainer of ghostscript isn't the right person to look at it. The same issue can appear with other ports used by make release, such as perl. In fact, there isn't any way for this to be solved in the ports tree short of removing the CONFLICTS handling (which is not what I am suggesting). What happens is the release building process uses certain ports to generate the HTML documentation (release notes, etc.) on the CDs. To insure a clean build environment, these ports are built and installed in a chroot away from the main system. However, prior to entering the chroot, the distfiles for these ports are fetched and checksummed with "make checksum-recursive". This process occurs outside the chroot, so the ports system looks for conflicts with what is installed in /usr/local, assuming that these distfiles are for ports to be installed in /usr/local. This assumption is flawed, since they will not be installed there and thus will not conflict. My patch runs the "make checksum-recursive" target with -DDISABLE_CONFLICTS to avoid these false positives. This will not "break other people's machines" as you state because the absolute worst case scenario with my patch is having a couple duplicate distfiles (such as perl5.10 and perl5.12). Nothing is built or installed with the DISABLE_CONFLICTS flag. What I'm asking you to do is revert the description, category, and assignment of the PR so that someone who is familiar with the release building process will see it. -- Rob Farmer