Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 3 Nov 1997 23:53:46 -0000
From:      Ian Vaudrey <i.vaudrey@cableinet.co.uk>
To:        "'Jordan K. Hubbard'" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Cc:        "'ports@freebsd.org'" <ports@freebsd.org>
Subject:   RE: Ranlib 
Message-ID:  <01BCE8B3.D1F95660@nemkoltd.nildram.co.uk>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
That'll teach me to be terse. This is a new port that I'm working on, I
included @exec ranlib %D/%F in the PLIST because I noticed other ports
of libraries do so. I then find that make install followed by pkg_delete
works, but make package + pkg_delete + pkg_add + pkg_delete gives an
error. I put this down to something (the md5 signature?) being changed
by the @exec ranlib line - which is of course run by pkg_add, although
the error isn't produced until pkg_delete is run.

I can reproduce the problem with at least one existing port, libmalloc-1.18,
I haven't tried any others but if I'm right about the cause it'll happen
with any port that has an @exec ranlib line in the PLIST.

BTW, the refusal of pkg_delete to delete changed files is something that
must've seemed a real good idea at the time, but in practice is a pain in
the rear. This is the second time it's bitten me, there should be a way to
override it.

 - Ian

P.S. So *does* the @exec ranlib line serve any purpose? You of all people
will know.

On 03 November 1997 22:44, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> > The reason I'd like clarification on this is that the @exec line seems to bre
> ak
> > pkg_delete, so I'd like to lose it if it really isn't necessary.
> 
> It does?  pkg_delete is only supposed to run the @unexec lines though.
> Are you sure?  Can you give me a pointer to a package which does this?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 					Jordan
> 
> 

On 03 November 1997 22:09, Ian Vaudrey wrote:
> I'm working on a port of a library, and there's something I'd like explained
> if possible. Some existing library ports include a line @exec ranlib %D/%F in
> the PLIST. Why is that? I would've thought that this was unnecessary: ranlib
> just builds a symbol table doesn't it? If the library was ranlibbed when it was
> built, the copy in the package already has a symbol table - or am I missing
> something?
> 
> The reason I'd like clarification on this is that the @exec line seems to break
> pkg_delete, so I'd like to lose it if it really isn't necessary.
> 
>  - Ian
> 




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?01BCE8B3.D1F95660>