Date: 08 Sep 2000 18:52:53 -0700 From: asami@FreeBSD.org (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) To: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu>, FreeBSD Ports <ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Ports Options Paper Message-ID: <vqcwvgm72mi.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> In-Reply-To: Kris Kennaway's message of "Fri, 8 Sep 2000 18:28:33 -0700 (PDT)" References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009081819050.78526-100000@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> * On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote: * > (2) Speaking of updates, we first need to implement updates. There * > are lots of sticky problems, such as what to do when a port in the * > middle of the dependency chain is updated (do we update all ports * > that depend on this one as well as all ports that this ports * > depend on?), etc. * * The package should carry information about which versions of its parent * dependencies it works with - if they conflict, they must be upgraded too. * This has been implemented by NetBSD already. Let's take it from them then. * Upgrading children is more difficult since a package generally wont know * what packages may depend on it, and until you fetch any new versions of What's wrong with using +REQUIRED_BY? That will give you the list of ports that depend on it currently. (Of course, a new version may or may not depend on it anymore, but it won't hurt to upgrade it anyway.) * the children you wont know if they can co-exist with the parent and don't * need to be upgraded after all. Upgrading all children would be a * reasonable improvement over what we have now, and the ports index could be * used to infer the missing data if it's present (i.e. the ports index * carries the same information which would be obtained by fetching the * individual package and checking for a version conflict, so you can just * use that if it's up to date) Does the NetBSD index contain information on necessary version ranges for dependencies too? If so, yes, that should work. * Until/unless we build packages with multiple versions, packages will never * be enough for our users - if they want to use a feature which isn't built * into the default package, they have to venture into ports. We can't get * away with saying "ports are for experienced users only, everyone else can * use packages" (yet) Let's make packages with multiple versions then. I thought this was what this discussion was all about. * One more comment on this: your argument seems to be "well, no-one could * ever make it work before, so we should no longer try". I don't think * that's a valid argument. No, I'm saying this is a solved problem. The MASTERDIR method works well enough, I don't see why we need to change it. Having one directory per port is extremely useful for parallel package building. As Neil proposed, we can even hide the extra Makefiles in subdirectories when we go multi-level. At any rate, this has nothing to do with how Will proposes to implement options (which I think is a good idea), so I suggest we drop it and concentrate on the main issues. Satoshi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?vqcwvgm72mi.fsf>