Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 02:31:22 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: cjclark@alum.mit.edu Cc: Chip <chip@wiegand.org>, questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports question Message-ID: <14845.12762.195359.386092@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <20001030001140.C75251@149.211.6.64.reflexcom.com> References: <1807303@toto.iv> <14844.29672.848678.465770@guru.mired.org> <20001029120815.Q75251@149.211.6.64.reflexcom.com> <14845.9735.739423.377442@guru.mired.org> <20001030001140.C75251@149.211.6.64.reflexcom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Crist J . Clark writes: > > While I may agree with you, libtool isn't doing it right. It fails to > > build with strange messages, without telling you what's really > > wrong. > Hmmm, the message seems pretty straight forward to me, > > Your libtool installation is out of date. Please remove > and reinstall /usr/ports/devel/libtool. > > The code is in /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk. That's much better than what it did when I ran into this problem. Glad to see it's been improved. > > This is not > > restricted to ports that are updates of each other; two unrelated > > ports may install a binary with the same name. > Yeah, I 'spose that could happen. Never seen it happen yet. I've recently been involved in a case where a submitted port was going to overwrite a binary from one of my ports. There may be an audit step taken by the committers to prevent that from happening in general. > > Just to confuse > > matters, some ports are designed so that having multiple versions > > around works correctly, with the last one installed being the > > "default" one. > Huh. I've seen it work unintentionally when a port changes > drastically between versions. The python port does it very nicely. The multiple gtk ports also do it (though it could be argued that those are different ports, not multiple versions of one port). > > All of which was summarized in my original answer as "'updating' a > > port isn't something the ports system deals with very well.". > True. But I was just pointing out that I like the fact the effort was > put in to do some intelligent checks on the use libtool port. I think > that type of setup, warning the user and letting him determine how he > would like to proceed, is better than ports blindly installing and > quite probably overwriting previous versions. As I mentioned, the warning wasn't there when I ran into this problem. It wouldn't surprise me if this happens because someone ran into that problem, and wanted to fix it. Unfortunately, as discussed on a different thread about ports, the linkage between installed packages and ports is tenuous, so doing this as a general thing is hard. I supposed having the install phase check to see if any files being installed already exist, and complaining in that case would do the trick. However, that's a major change in the ports system, as it currently uses the applications installation process. <mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?14845.12762.195359.386092>