Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 20:30:48 -0500 From: Eric Schuele <e.schuele@computer.org> To: Csaba Henk <csaba-ml@creo.hu> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Determining what a port will install... (more than pretty-print-*) [Soln] Message-ID: <4345CFC8.4080508@computer.org> In-Reply-To: <20051006190022.GC2911@beastie.creo.hu> References: <43416280.80403@computer.org> <20051004115814.GA99762@beastie.creo.hu> <4342AB77.90209@computer.org> <20051006190022.GC2911@beastie.creo.hu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Csaba Henk wrote: > On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 11:19:03AM -0500, Eric Schuele wrote: > >>Csaba Henk wrote: >> >>>Because all such scripts are fundamentally broken. >>> >>>When make decides which ports to pull in, it doesn't only use the flat >>>data of build and run dependencies, but uses its full Turing complete >>>computing power. Eg., what happens when a port needs a postscript >>>interpreter? >> >>Then do the pretty-print(s) not provide the useful information they >>appear to? I mean, If the above were true then they would have no >>value... and should go away. Or do they provide true but incomplete >>information? > > > As far as I can see, they tell you the list of packages which would be > installed if you were doing the install from scratch (ie., no packages > were installed). This is a somewhat useful information, anyway. > > Btw., is make really Turing complete? As far as I can see, complex tasks > are delegated to shell, but I can't recall seeing any "while" in make > code... > > >>>Should it use the AFPL or the GNU edition as a dependency? >>>Of course, doing a favor toward one of them (and taking away user's >>>choice) is unacceptable. So what happens is that make directly checks >>>whether the gs executable is present. >>> >>>See, for example, print/gv. Your script's output will include >>>ghostscript-gnu-7.07_13 both as a build and a run dependency. >>>Yet when I type make, my ghostscript-gnu-7.07_12 installation will >>>be happily utilized as the following output snippet shows: >> >>Is this not acceptable behavior since it is just a port revision? >>Shouldn't the revision be compatible in every way with the vendor's release? > > > What do you mean by this? The behaviour seen upon installing gv is > absolutely what one would expect. It's just hard to make proper > predictions. It 'sounded' as if you were stating that it was inappropriate for the 7.07_12 port to be used in place of the 7.07_13 (which was required)... when this seemed correct to me. I'm sure I just misunderstood what you were saying... disregard my comment. > > >>Thanks for contributing to the script. > > > You are welcome. > > Regards, > Csaba > -- Regards, Eric
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4345CFC8.4080508>