Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:50:35 +0100 (CET) From: Simon J Mudd <sjmudd@pobox.com> To: <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: gv port builds but fails - needing libpng.so.4 (?) Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0111260839020.1856-100000@phoenix.ea4els.ampr.org> In-Reply-To: <20011125171037.A97187@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 25 Nov 2001, Kris Kennaway wrote:
[snip]
> > Yes - in fact, gv doesn't even link against libpng, so I'm not sure
> > what's going on with your binary.
>
> I bet gv is actually fine, but the problem is actually with the
> ghostscript port which is used to do the actual PS rendering.
> ghostscript uses png.
That sounds entirely possible. In fact I'll now update ghostview and try
again.
> The moral of the story is that when you upgrade one port, you must
> cvsup your entire ports collection and upgrade all ports which depend
> on it.
That also sounds sensible.
> The easiest way to do this is probably portupgrade -r
I think my point is this:
- why isn't this enforced by the ports collection?
- why is it currenlty allowed
- why do the ports collection allow you to have two "conflicting" ports
installed at the same time
- this really causes the problem I've encountered.
- ideally you shouldn't be allowed to uninstall/upgrade a port
on which other ports depend, unless as you say you upgrade the
dependent ports too. I think this information should be available
at make install or make deinstall time.
Using pkg_tree, I've found that my current system is "a real mess". I've
not been using FreeBSD that long, since 3.4-RELEASE, and even in that time
I've seen several problems of this type.
In fact while I have 207 packages installed in my system I currently have
240 unsatisfied dependencies (as witnessed by
'pkg_tree | grep unknown | wc -l').
I'm not sure whether I should take this to mean that I shouldn't follow
-STABLE, or quite what, but it does concern me that other packages I
have installed may be in the same situation. If they are libraries and
only minor version is different then the may be no problem.
This is one aspect where I think rpm is much better.
I know I've taken this somewhat off-topic. Thanks for helping me out on my
understanding of the problem.
Simon
--
Simon J Mudd, Tel: +34-91-408 4878, Mobile: +34-605-085 219
Madrid, Spain. email: sjmudd@pobox.com, Postfix RPM Packager
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.33.0111260839020.1856-100000>