Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 08:53:53 +0100 From: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> To: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@missouri.edu> Cc: Thomas Rasmussen <thomas@gibfest.dk>, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-ports@freebsd.org" <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Manually registering dependencies for ports Message-ID: <4C0CA591.20307@infracaninophile.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <4C0C4709.5000504@missouri.edu> References: <4C0C34FC.4030603@gibfest.dk> <4C0C3A5B.8010707@missouri.edu> <4C0C3D5F.2070204@FreeBSD.org> <4C0C403B.4000005@missouri.edu> <4C0C4306.205@FreeBSD.org> <4C0C43A3.6050100@missouri.edu> <4C0C4709.5000504@missouri.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 07/06/2010 02:10:33, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > OK, after that appropriate chastising, let me try again. This time I > did test it. > > So, suppose you have a script xxx that uses port yyy. So this will work: > > echo xxx >> /var/db/pkg/yyy/+REQUIRED_BY > mkdir /var/db/pkg/xxx > touch /var/db/pkg/xxx/+CONTENTS > > On the other hand, this will cause programs like pkg_info and > pkg_version to get out of sorts. And I guess if you use programs like > port-upgrade (which I don't), who knows what damage this might cause. > > > > So --- this is what I would do. If I had a set of scripts that I wanted > to install, I would write my own local port whose job is to install the > scripts, and which lists the needed dependencies as RUN_DEPENDS. So, you're creating your own meta-port that exists only to be depended on by the ports you specifically want to have installed? That's a really good idea. You might need to fill out the contents of your "wanted-ports" meta-port a bit more, but the concept seems sound to me. It shouldn't cause horrendous problems with most package tools -- they all cope with things like bsdpan- ports already, which don't have any directory in the ports tree. That means the standard ports management tools (portupgrade, portmaster) won't be able to update them, but in this case there's no need to do that. Hmmmm.... Cheers, Matthew - -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matthew@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkwMpZEACgkQ8Mjk52CukIygygCcCgGqISNL8u9ply8Rm6/q3M0t 394AnRPP9FijMSWW+Eg7xGkxpH/hSOeG =tCY8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C0CA591.20307>