Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:39:18 -0700 From: David Southwell <david@vizion2000.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Cc: Volodymyr Kostyrko <c.kworr@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Managing bsdpan Message-ID: <200807220739.18784.david@vizion2000.net> In-Reply-To: <g64p59$bku$1@ger.gmane.org> References: <200807220522.55840.david@vizion2000.net> <200807220636.08131.david@vizion2000.net> <g64p59$bku$1@ger.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 22 July 2008 07:00:09 Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote: > David Southwell wrote: > > On Tuesday 22 July 2008 05:42:05 Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote: > >> David Southwell wrote: > >>> The following portsupgrade reports for bsdpan lead me to ask a few > >>> trivial questions and suggestions (see below) > >>> > >>> 1. why are some packages listed in the format: > >>> - isc/p5-Array-Compare (bsdpan-Array-Compare-1.15) > >>> rather than: > >>> - (bsdpan-libwww-perl-5.813) > >> > >> Ports tree contains the port for the given package and knows its correct > >> name. > >> > >>> Is this indicative of an inconsistency in my system administration or > >>> inconsistencies between package make files? > >> > >> Maybe. > > > > to which option does your maybe apply?? > > I just don't know why in your example bsdpan-libwww-perl-5.813 wasn't > mapped to www/p5-libwww and so on. Exactlky my point.. the system is not consistent!!! My guess is it is not consistent because there are no references for how BSDPAN is meant to work. > > >>> 2. There is another question on similar lines because some packages > >>> helpfully show the hierarchy in the ports tree etc: > >>> devel/*** > >>> rather than simply > >>> *** > >> > >> Why 'devel/'? There's no confidence that thees packages have their > >> corresponding ports. > > > > I do not think you read carefully. > > Some packages are reported for example as: > > - devel/p5-Devel-Symdump (bsdpan-Devel-Symdump-2.08) > > others as > > - (bsdpan-DB_File-1.817) > > > > In other words some show the BSDPAN package location in the port > > hierarchy others do not. The former method seems more useful. > > There's some misunderstanding here... Packages are not ports. In your > example we have ' - [<port name>] (<package name>)' syntax, but this > doesn't state that any <port name> installs <package name>. Just try it > yourself - the package name when build from the ports would be > 'p5-Devel-Symdump-2.0800'. This explicitly states that your installed > package wasn't built from ports, but have a proper port to be > installed/upgraded/replaced with. As for other lines ports system fail > to identify corresponding ports. Let us be careful here.. the fact that they appear in the ports hierarchy means they get referred to as ports. The intention seems to be to maintain consistency with the rest of the "ports system". It may be a bit of a kludge but it needs to be systematic if it is going to be easily understood. The reason I have drawn attention to a few of the inconsistebncies is because the lack of consistency makes it difficult to understand, explain and manage. > > >> Please note that bsdpan-* is not a port name or part of it. It's the > >> name of installed package. > > > > I do not agree. BSDPAN is the name that is used by and referred to in > > freebsd documentation as the system by which cpan ports are incorporated > > into the frebsd ports tree. The package are the ports. bsdpan is not > > the name of a port. > > *Curios*. Citacion needed. Quick search through the handbook gives me > nothing on 'bsdpan' at all. There's nothing on official site either > except: "BSDPAN, a collection of modules that provides tighter > integration of Perl into the FreeBSD Ports Collection, has been added." > in 5.0 relnotes. Again packages are not ports, they are really different > beasts. > Like I said trying to make perl modules constent with the ports system. > >>> 3. In regard to bsdpan apropos generates: > >>> # apropos bsdpan > >>> bsdpan: nothing appropriate > >>> # > >> So a wonderful introduction in freebsd documentationbut no further details to follow up the introduction. > >> True. Perl packages installed directly from bsdpan or from tarballs > >> automatically do create corresponding package entry in '/var/db/pkg'. > >> How kind of them, really. > >> > >>> 4. A search on freebsd website under bsdpan brings reference to the > >>> inclusion of bsdpan in the ports distribution but not to any > >>> documentation on its use. > > > > I think I have not explained clearly. I did not mean how to use the > > individual port but how to manage perl ports that are installed via > > BSDPAN. For example the appropriateness of "holding" packages. > > Human cause. If someone uses this package personally. Any software which > comes from ports do have complete dependency tree in ports also so none > of that packages are actually needed. Or in case some packages from > ports were installed after having these ones installed from CPAN you can > safely delete them and use 'pkgdb -F' to correct any dependency errors > found. > > Just in case. Some software do have a weird preference to interfere with > package building. This means webmin changing rc.d scripts for installed > packages. This means web hosting software trying to move in packages > users requested. This means other web hosting software trying to support > it's own pile of binaries. In this cases you should be aware of such > things and count yourself as their personal user. > > >> I'm not a perl junkie. Try hitting CPAN instead. > >> > >>> 5. # locate bsdpan brings a list of bsdpan packages in /var/db/pkg but > >>> no other files documentation etc. > >> > >> True. See 3. > >> > >>> 7 If something does exist could it be incorporated into the ports tree > >>> e.g ports/BSDPAN_README for holding general guidelines about using the > >>> BSDPAN and covering such issues as advice about holding packages etc. > >> > >> Not by me, really. Try to invetigate this and write it down then propose > >> it for inclusion. > >> > >>> 9. Would not a current index of BSDPAN ports e.g ports/BSDPAN_INDEX > >>> including a short description also be useful? > >> > >> Reply hazy. Ports ain't really the correct place for this staff. Try > >> hitting CPAN. > > > > freebsd ports may not have an equivalent for all items listed in cpan. I > > am thinking of simply an index which list the bsdpan path/portname > > showing the equivalent cpan port names & versions, This file could be > > updated whenever a bsdpan port is committed and maintained in the same > > way as ports/ UPDATING. > > I think this way we result in local equivalent of 'grep "^p5-" > /usr/ports/INDEX-*' This does not deal with discrepancies between versions as list in freebsd ports index and cpan index... Things are not that simple. David
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200807220739.18784.david>