From owner-freebsd-doc Thu Oct 17 11: 0: 3 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 504B837B401 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:00:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from south.nanolink.com (south.nanolink.com [217.75.134.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B99C043E6A for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:59:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from roam@ringlet.net) Received: (qmail 58122 invoked by uid 85); 17 Oct 2002 18:08:55 -0000 Received: from office.sbnd.net (HELO straylight.ringlet.net) (217.75.140.130) by south.nanolink.com with SMTP; 17 Oct 2002 18:08:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 16637 invoked by uid 1000); 17 Oct 2002 17:59:42 -0000 Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 20:59:41 +0300 From: Peter Pentchev To: "Gary W. Swearingen" Cc: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Curious doc/en*/Makefile Checkout/Delete cycling by cvsup Message-ID: <20021017175941.GG369@straylight.oblivion.bg> Mail-Followup-To: "Gary W. Swearingen" , freebsd-doc@freebsd.org References: <4zlm4z74c7.m4z@localhost.localdomain> <20021016070026.GU372@straylight.oblivion.bg> <20021017060518.GB371@straylight.oblivion.bg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="VACxsDaSTfeluoxK" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-Virus-Scanned: by Nik's Monitoring Daemon (AMaViS perl-11d ) Sender: owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org --VACxsDaSTfeluoxK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1251 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 10:48:36AM -0700, Gary W. Swearingen wrote: > Peter Pentchev writes: >=20 > > If there is any bug at all, it would have to be a minor portupgrade bug, > > insofar as portupgrade does the same thing as the Ports Collection's > > bsd.port.mk when checking dependencies. [snip] >=20 > Sounds like portupgrade is working OK. Like you indicate later, the fix > lies elsewhere. I think we are in violent agreement on most points :) > > Yes, this is a bit unfortunate, but that's the way it works; the only > > way it could be "fixed" would be to make the www/links1 port install a > > bin/links1 file, either as a symlink, or as the "real" links file. >=20 > It seems to me that the problem here is that docproj doesn't like the > current version of a port and forces one to mess up the current version. > You fix seems to just mess it up differently. If docproj can't use the > current version it ought to kluge up an alternate version with different > names so it doesn't break the current version. The docproj scripts > would, of course, have to use the alternate names (or alternate PATH). Yep, as I stated in my message, the real fix would be porting the -dump option to links-2.0. > > A symlink would be preferable, because then the "real" browser would > > still be invoked as 'links', and no doc/ Makefile's would need to be > > changed. Then, the docproj port could be made to check for > > ${PREFIX}/bin/links1, so www/links would not satisfy the dependency. >=20 > So when one tries to run the current-version "links", one gets the > alternate one? That's nasty. Only if one has installed www/links1 over www/links; yes, this would be a problem indeed, as I stated below in what you quoted. > > This might still create conflicts on a "blind" portupgrade run, because > > then the newly-installed links1 port would overwrite the links-2.0 > > bin/links executable.. guess there is no real clean way to handle this >=20 > The links1 port already has that nasty feature. And it leaves the > current version in the package database as if it were still valid. Many ports do that; the Ports Collection does not currently have a way to check whether there is an already installed version of a "similar" port *with a different origin directory*. There *might* be a way to check for that, but it would be pretty ugly: separating the package name from the package version, and then removing any possible prefixes or at least suffixes.. there might be a way, but I cannot think of an easy solution right away. Including another variable in the package contents file (/var/db/pkg/*/+CONTENTS), which new variable states the plain vanilla package name without any prefixes, suffixes, etc, might help, but not quite. Virtual packages would do the job better, but currently there are only a very few of those, if at all. JFYI, examples of other sets of ports with the same problem are, say, linux_base 6 and 7, netscape*-{navigator,communicator}, mozilla{,-devel}, daemontools, and many others. G'luck, Peter --=20 Peter Pentchev roam@ringlet.net roam@FreeBSD.org PGP key: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc Key fingerprint FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553 When you are not looking at it, this sentence is in Spanish. --VACxsDaSTfeluoxK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9rvqN7Ri2jRYZRVMRAvktAKDDnp5Qwuez/BSb7EmUAxSSqfbs2QCfZtt8 8mf7ttWJ9TYvFazvNQr6JCo= =DswQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --VACxsDaSTfeluoxK-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message