From owner-freebsd-questions Sun Nov 25 17:21:19 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from guru.mired.org (okc-65-31-203-60.mmcable.com [65.31.203.60]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 97D9E37B405 for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 17:21:12 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 32422 invoked by uid 100); 26 Nov 2001 01:21:09 -0000 From: Mike Meyer MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15361.39173.28696.229731@guru.mired.org> Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 19:21:09 -0600 To: Simon J Mudd Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: gv port builds but fails - needing libpng.so.4 (?) In-Reply-To: <67718098@toto.iv> X-Mailer: VM 6.90 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" XEmacs Lucid X-face: "5Mnwy%?j>IIV\)A=):rjWL~NB2aH[}Yq8Z=u~vJ`"(,&SiLvbbz2W`;h9L,Yg`+vb1>RG% *h+%X^n0EZd>TM8_IB;a8F?(Fb"lw'IgCoyM.[Lg#r\ Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Simon J Mudd types: > On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Edwin Groothuis wrote: > However I have several duplicate packages installed, amongst them: > > kdelibs-2.1.1 Libraries for KDE2 > kdelibs-2.2_3 Libraries for KDE2 > > I've in the past found that installing or upgrading ports doesn't tidily > remove the previously installed ports and can cause all sorts of problems. You're right - you have to remove the old port/package to get it cleaned up tidily. That's usually recommended, but some people would rather avoid it because doing so may mean rebuilding a lot of ports that depend on it. > In cases where the port's configuration files are important (a web o mail > server for example), won't the make deinstall remove all these > configuration files, thus losing vital information? If it does, that's a nono on the port authors part. Ports that require configuration are supposed to install sample config files and tell you to copy and edit those, or otherwise avoid remove your config files. If you find a port that removes configuration information, a note to the port author is in order. If you can't recover the removed copy from a backup afterwards, then fixing your admin procedures is in order. Putting such things in a source code control system makes all this a much saner. You branch from the sample file to the real one, then the updated is a vendor update and the software handles much of the merge work. > While the port system works quite well, I've found it rather lacking > regarding dependency checking, upgrade procedures and son compared to > other packaging mechanisms, of which rpm comes to mind as being the one > I'm most familiar with. If that's the case, you're getting into trouble with ports for the same reason I hate rpm - you're not really using the tools properly. > The fact that the ports allow me to get into the situation I'm in is > really asking for trouble later down the road as I'm seeing now. > Is this a valid criticism? Based on my experience with rpm, I'd say implying that ports/pkgs are worse than rpm is invalid. But the point of your criticism is valid. The ports/package/install system are undergoing an overhaul, but that isn't far enough along to be used in -current. For now, you can use the portupgrade port/pkg to help with the task of maintaining the package database. http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Q: How do you make the gods laugh? A: Tell them your plans. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message