Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 16:58:11 -0500 (CDT) From: Lars Eighner <portsuser@larseighner.com> To: "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@berklix.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Sergey Matveychuk <sem@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: suggestion for pkgdb from ports-mgmt/portupgrade: add more explanation Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1109021657410.1576@abbf.6qbyyneqvnyhc> In-Reply-To: <201109011333.p81DX2sN081775@fire.js.berklix.net> References: <201109011333.p81DX2sN081775@fire.js.berklix.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 1 Sep 2011, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > Hi, > Suggestion: pkgdb is too cryptic even with -v, > it needs more explanation what it is up to & > particularly what decisions it asks from user Of course you never see messages from pkgdb unless something has gone wrong. Some things go wrong in common predicatable ways, and there really should be some kind of lint for those things (as for example when a package/port is moved). > Even 'stale dependency' is not clear. Is it missing or what. Essentially. > Doubtless could be figured out with enough other pkg commands & ls, > but slightly extending various print commands within pkgdb would be nice. The main thing here, of course, is that ports uses "dependency" in the exact opposite of its normal English sense (just as twitter uses "following" in the exact opposite of its normal English sense). In normal Engish 'X is a dependency of Y' means Y is necessary for X (X depends on Y), but instead in ports (and computer talk in general so far as I can tell) it means X is necessary for Y (Y depends on X). Because 'dependency' is used backwards, that leaves a variety of awkward expressions to be used when the meaning really is 'dependency.' > Checking for origin duplicates > ...... > Checking linkchecker-6.3 > Stale dependency: linkchecker-6.3 -> tidy-lib-090315.c_1 (www/tidy-lib): > Disclose depends for linkchecker-6.3 > tidy-20000804_2 (score:19%) ? ([y]es/[n]o/[a]ll) [no] > > No clue is given what score means or what decision program wants > user to make. Ignore the score for best results. This is a bit like a spell checker that gives only its first guess and calculates its confidence in that first guess. As with a spelling checker, if you do not recognize that first guess as right, you need to do your own research (such as opening a dead-tree dictionary and actually - gasp - looking it up for yourself). You will almost always immediately recognize as correct the suggestion when the dependency has simply bumped versions. Some other possibilities are: * Something (maybe you) has deleted the package/port that the subject needs. This can happen when two libs compete for the same space and you force the installation of a second one. * The package/port has been absorbed into another package/port or the base system. * The package/port a new name. * The package/port has been split. Maybe all of the parts are needed, and maybe only one. * A bad miracle hs occurred. Many of these thing could be fixed automagically with a ports lint, but maintaining it would be a big pain. If you want brain-dead, you can try Fedora 15 or its role-model hero Windows. -- Lars Eighner http://www.larseighner.com/index.html 8800 N IH35 APT 1191 AUSTIN TX 78753-5266
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1109021657410.1576>