From owner-freebsd-ports Wed Feb 19 19:54:19 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A5EE37B401 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:54:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de (krusty.dt.E-Technik.Uni-Dortmund.DE [129.217.163.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97A8943F85 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:54:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from matthias.andree@gmx.de) Received: from m2a2.dyndns.org (krusty.dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de [129.217.163.1]) by mail.dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92ED4A381D for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 04:54:16 +0100 (CET) Received: by merlin.emma.line.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 050DC74FCD; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 04:54:14 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 04:54:14 +0100 From: Matthias Andree To: Kris Kennaway Cc: Matthias Andree , ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bento package builds Message-ID: <20030220035414.GA13041@merlin.emma.line.org> References: <20030218183937.GC30562@rot13.obsecurity.org> <20030219221942.GE1388@rot13.obsecurity.org> <20030219224759.GA32581@merlin.emma.line.org> <20030220023503.GC2739@rot13.obsecurity.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030220023503.GC2739@rot13.obsecurity.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 11:47:59PM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote: > > > - install the structure after isntalling dependencies but before > > building the port (might miss some extra files though) > > Actually I suppose I could just compare the directory tree after all > dependencies are installed with the one when the package itself has > been removed, but before all the other dependencies are removed. I'll > have to think about that a bit to see if it will fail in any > situations. Or is that what you meant by #3? :) That is what I meant but didn't write. I also see that there's a danger that the "extra files" check might miss an unremoved directory if that's also created by a dependency. Say, you have a package pizza that depends on a package tomato. If tomato installs files into share/tomato and pizza installs files into share/tomato/chopped, but fails to remove share/tomato, you won't see this failure. However, this will only matter if you happen to remove the tomato package before the pizza package which is uncommon. pkg_remove would get the removal in the right order, but pkg_delete -f might cause this. One might argue removing pkg_delete -f is not supported if it breaks dependencies then, unless portupgrade does it :-) -- Matthias Andree To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message