Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 06:10:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/28521: inconsistency: daemontools and serialmail Message-ID: <200109251310.f8PDA1x10262@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR ports/28521; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net>
To: Tom Hukins <tom@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: Andre Goeree <abgoeree@uwnet.nl>,
FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org, nbm@FreeBSD.org,
dom@happygiraffe.net
Subject: Re: ports/28521: inconsistency: daemontools and serialmail
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 16:08:01 +0300
On Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 11:56:37AM +0100, Tom Hukins wrote:
> [Summary: Both the daemontools and serialmail ports install a program
> called setlock in the same location. Can we resolve this?]
>
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 11:26:36PM +0200, Andre Goeree wrote:
> >
> > In this particular case (serialmail/daemontools) the conflicting
> > files do not differ much. The files are from the same developer
> > and have probably the same function (are interchangeable/compatible).
>
> Right. The code for both versions of setlock is near enough
> identical, from our point of view.
>
> > The problem comes when one of the ports gets deinstalled and deletes
> > the conflicting file, it could still be needed by the other port.
> > A solution would be to not to delete the file but to display a message
> > about deleting the file manually when it's no longer needed, this is
> > already common practice with users (postgresql).
>
> I'm the maintainer of the serialmail port, and I'm copying this
> message to Neil, the maintainer of daemontools, and Dom, the
> maintainer of daemontools53.
>
> If it weren't for the daemontools53 port, I'd suggest that serialmail
> be modified to not install setlock but depend on daemontools instead.
> However, some users may have daemontools53 installed instead which
> does not include setlock. Most of the files in daemontools are
> daemontools53 have identical names, though, so users can't install
> both ports.
>
> I can't think of a neat way to deal with this, but I thought it might
> be useful to mention my thoughts so far.
I believe that something like the following should work:
RUN_DEPENDS= setlock:${PORTSDIR}/sysutils/daemontools
If any version of daemontools is already installed, the setlock
binary will be present and no action will be taken. If there is
no setlock binary, the version from the sysutils/daemontools port
will be installed (along with the whole of the port itself, of course :)
G'luck,
Peter
--
Hey, out there - is it *you* reading me, or is it someone else?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200109251310.f8PDA1x10262>