From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 18 20:26:19 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E6FC37B401 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 20:26:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net (hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C948E43FDF for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 20:26:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from parv_fm@mailsent.net) Received: from sdn-ap-031dcwashp0337.dialsprint.net ([65.179.65.83] helo=moo.holy.cow) by hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 196izW-00005t-00; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 20:26:16 -0700 Received: by moo.holy.cow (Postfix, from userid 1001) id A931EDFFB; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 23:29:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 23:29:23 -0400 From: parv To: Joe Marcus Clarke Message-ID: <20030419032923.GB2855@moo.holy.cow> Mail-Followup-To: Joe Marcus Clarke , Kris Kennaway , ports@freebsd.org References: <1050640352.58286.22.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <20030418045754.GA94741@rot13.obsecurity.org> <1050646484.58286.108.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1050646484.58286.108.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> cc: ports@freebsd.org cc: Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: Recent bsd.port.mk changes X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 03:26:19 -0000 in message <1050646484.58286.108.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com>, wrote Joe Marcus Clarke thusly... > > On Fri, 2003-04-18 at 00:57, Kris Kennaway wrote: ... > > In your case since the PREFIX is different they don't actually > > conflict so one might argue that it should be allowed. > > I suppose that's something that could be checked in bsd.port.mk > > by extracting the prefix for the existing package from the > > contents file and comparing to PREFIX. > > This would be acceptable. Same here. > However, the make deinstall would still remove both versions. > What about keeping make deinstall the same as it was with one > exception: if you type make deinstall in a port directory, and the > version specified by that port's Makefile is not installed (but > another version with the same origin is), then the other version > would be deinstalled. However, if a package is found that matches > the version specified in the port's Makefile, then only that > version is removed. How would a package be found, being in /usr/ports/packages/All? In my case, i do not like the symlinks generated in various directories to the packages in All. I need to have a package in the ports directory, and let me move it wherever i desire. And yes, i specify the path to pkg_add instead of just port/package name when i need to install an already build port as a package. In such a scenario i would rather have new behaviour than the one you are suggesting. 'make deinstall' should not discriminate between a port & a package. ...all that unless i have missed something. - parv --