Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:04:40 +0100 From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> To: Eivind Eklund <eivind@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: HEADS UP: New bsd.*.mk changes Message-ID: <400D4388.6060708@fillmore-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <20040120140942.GD94636@FreeBSD.org> References: <1074590694.85583.20.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <400D2939.5090203@fillmore-labs.com> <20040120133020.GB94636@FreeBSD.org> <400D344B.6010403@fillmore-labs.com> <20040120140942.GD94636@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Eivind Eklund wrote: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:59:39PM +0100, Oliver Eikemeier wrote: > >>Eivind Eklund wrote: >> >>>improvement). And I thought it was supposed to be unique, while it seems >>>it isn't. That said, I think the name LATEST_LINK should be changed >>>(possibly >>>not right now) if LATEST_LINK is to be used this way. >>> >>>Also, I don't see why LATEST_LINK would always be unique - instead, it >>>looks to >>>me as if there could be conflicts between different ports on this (while I >>>thought >>>we defined that there shouldn't be for PORTNAME). >> >>The problem with the current solution is that renaming OPTIONSFILE is not >>easy, because ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PORTNAME} is somewhat hardcoded in bsd.port.mk >>now. I can change PORT_DBDIR, but have to accept ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PORTNAME}, >>which is bad. Perhaps we should have >>OPTIONSFILE?=${PORT_DBDIR}/${LATEST_LINK}.options, >>which is easier to change. > > I don't think this particular name is usable right now - we "need" something > that falls back to ${PORT_DBDIR}/${PORTNAME}, as the OPTIONS system is now > in production, ports have started to use it[1], and people will have started > storing options in just a few hours. Unless we can resolve this within > those few hours, we need to have the same ultimate fallback. > > [1] Well, only security/snort so far, so I'm going to ask the committer to > back that out until the present hoopla is sorted out. I.e. in snort: $PORTNAME = $LATEST_LINK = "snort" >>LATEST_LINK should be unique for each package, and I guess if two ports >>have the same LATEST_LINK they CONFLICT anyway. > > Whether they conflict is really immaterial - they shouldn't share options. I agree.. >>But I don't care if we use LATEST_LINK or something else, as long as it >>is easily changeable in the case of conflicts. > > PORTNAME? ;-) How about having something like OPTIONSDIR?=${PORT_DBDIR}/${LATEST_LINK} this should be compatible for the few ports that use OPTIONS now, is easily changeable in case of conflicts and does The Right Thing in most cases. LATEST_LIST is unique for 9860 ports, the most prominent example where this isn't the case being the various jdk's. Other ports like mysql-*, postfix, staroffice and cyrus-imapd should be fixed anyway. -Oliver
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?400D4388.6060708>