Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 12:52:49 +0200 From: Ernst de Haan <ernst@jollem.com> To: Espen Skoglund <esk@ira.uka.de> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Maintainer note: Please commit ports/27453 Message-ID: <20010529125249.A924@c187104187.telekabel.chello.nl> In-Reply-To: <15123.31361.988389.672402@i30nb2.ira.uka.de>; from esk@ira.uka.de on Tue, May 29, 2001 at 12:31:29PM %2B0200 References: <15122.34649.427846.394028@i30nb2.ira.uka.de> <15123.31361.988389.672402@i30nb2.ira.uka.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hey Espen,
Well, there may be a 4th alternative. And it's a fairly creative one IMO. From
my understanding you have 2 ports that both install the same file. Why not
change both ports so that the wrecked file is renamed, and then (sym|hard)link
to either one of the files?
Example:
Old situation:
Port A installs file ${PREFIX}/x
Port B installs file ${PREFIX}/x
New situation:
Port A installs file ${PREFIX}/Ax and links ${PREFIX}/x -> ${PREFIX}/Ax
Port B installs file ${PREFIX}/Bx and links ${PREFIX}/x -> ${PREFIX}/Bx
Deinstallation will however still be an issue.
One other alternative would be to create a separate port for that single file.
But that smells like a Bad Idea(TM).
Hmmm. Just trying to think creative ;)
/Ernst
Espen Skoglund wrote:
> [Espen Skoglund]
> > The following PR fixes an mtree problem with devel/arm-elf-gcc295:
> >
> > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/27453
>
> Uhm, wait a minute, it seems that the file added to the plist
> (bin/arm-elf-c++filt) was also part of arm-elf-binutils. What should
> one do when there are conflicts like this? Should I:
>
> a) Ignore the file in the gcc plist. This will somehow work since
> gcc depends on binutils anyway. It will create errorlogs on
> bento, though, and it seems like the wrong thing to do since it
> will possibly leave you with files in the system which are
> unaccounted for.
>
> b) Add it to the gcc plist, remove it from the binutils plist, and
> manually remove the file from the file system after make install
> in arm-elf-binutils. Since arm-elf-gcc295 is probably the only
> port which will ever need this file, this seems like a working
> solution. It does, however, create a few problems if you
> reinstall binutils after gcc has been installed (i.e., file will
> be deleted).
>
> c) Have the file in both plists. Easiest solution. Will ``break''
> binutils if gcc is removed from the system. If gcc is removed
> on the other hand, there is probably no other port using
> binutils anyway.
>
> Comments?
>
>
> eSk
>
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
>
--
Ernst de Haan
Java Architect
Jollem Information Technology
"Come to me all who are weary and burdened
and I will give you rest" -- Jesus Christ
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?20010529125249.A924>