locked packages got upgraded anyway

[markham breitbach]

Something like a local override list would be great.
I am currently in a situation where I am trying to build a  sendmail
package from ports with the LDAP option enable, but it has a dependency
of saslauthd, but that also needs the LDAP option and there is no
(simple and obvious) way for me to tell the sendmail package to use my
custom saslauthd+LDAP as a dependency.
Admittedly I have not spent a great deal of time looking into this yet,
as it just came up,  nor have I had the time to setup a poudriere repo
with all my customizations.


-M


On 2015-10-14 12:24 PM, vmunix.old at gmail.com wrote:
> * Mark Felder <feld at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015, at 17:42, Rainer Duffner wrote:
>>>> Am 14.10.2015 um 00:31 schrieb Benjamin Connelly <ben at electricembers.coop>:
>>>>
>>>> We have a few ports we compile with different compile time options than the FreeBSD binary repo, so we keep them locked. Last night when doing some patching, we saw those locked packages get updated anyhow. For example, pkg said all of these things on one system:
>>>>
>>>
>>> IMO, you either compile all of the packages you use yourself - or none.
>>>
>>> Until FreeBSD gets a sort of „stable“ ports-tree that lives for longer
>>> than three months, running your own repo is almost a must for anything
>>> even semi mission-critical.
>>>
>> He has a valid use case and I don't know why it was upgraded. Sounds
>> like a bug. Perhaps because it was a dependency? Hmm...
>>
>> A planned* feature is for a user to be permitted to have packages with
>> custom build options and "pkg upgrade" will handle fetching the required
>> parts of the ports tree and building the updated package so you don't
>> have to play this "lock your package, manually upgrade it later" game.
>> Not everyone should be forced to run poudriere just so they can change
>> one option on one package...
>>
>> * Planned as in "bapt or someone said we should do this when we have
>> time"
> Are there any plans to introduce sub-packages or "flavors"? Because that
> would solve the issue of having to fiddle with Poudriere in order to build
> packages with more options enabled once and for all for probably 99% of
> all users.
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-pkg at freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pkg
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-pkg-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>