ports/89164: [PATCH] /var/db/pkg/{portname}/+CONTENTS files sometimes contain wrong data

Pav Lucistnik pav at FreeBSD.org
Thu Nov 17 17:10:20 UTC 2005


The following reply was made to PR ports/89164; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Pav Lucistnik <pav at FreeBSD.org>
To: "Michael C. Shultz" <ringworm01 at gmail.com>
Cc: bug-followup at FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: ports/89164: [PATCH] /var/db/pkg/{portname}/+CONTENTS files
	sometimes contain wrong data
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 18:06:11 +0100

 > > > > > >  Could you send the standalone bsd.port.mk patch to this PR?
 > > > > >
 > > > > > Sorry, should have said where it was, gets put
 > > > > > into /usr/local/share/portmanager but I'll attach the patch to this
 > > > > > message anyways.
 > > > >
 > > > > So this incorporates your portmanager into bsd.port.mk? I'm afraid we
 > > > > can't possibly include this in the official ports tree without making
 > > > > portmanager part of base system, do we?
 > > > >
 > > > > What kind of feedback you're expecting from us, then?
 > > >
 > > > Most important is that you recognize there is a problem with
 > > > how +CONTENTS files are generated.
 > >
 > > Yes, there is a long standing problem and we're aware of it. Sadly, no
 > > workable solution was submitted so far (at least I haven't found any PR
 > > filed against it).
 > 
 > Well portmanager in base would solve the problem.  I'd say I could
 > just pull out the portion that generates the list but portmanager is very 
 > integrated so that would be a lot of work for no really good reason.
 > 
 > It would be easy to name it something else and disable unneeded
 > features however.....
 
 I think fixing the problem within the scope of existing tools (sh/awk
 soup under /usr/ports/Mk) is doable and much more preferable.
 
 > > > Wether or not you all choose to make portmanager as a part
 > > > of the base system is up to you all,  I really just wanted to let
 > > > you know that when portmanager is installed in a user system
 > > > I'd like it to make the adjustment to bsd.ports.mk.  If portmanager
 > > > is removed I'll make sure it smoothly returns bsd.ports.mk
 > > > to a usefull state as part of the deinstall process.
 > >
 > > You're free to do whatever you want in your software. Just note that you
 > > have to patch bsd.ports.mk every time user cvsuped the tree, not only on
 > > portmanager install/deinstall.
 > 
 > It checks for make -V PORTMANGER output every time a port is upgraded/rebuilt,
 > if no output it reapplies the patch.
 > 
 > The thing to be aware of though is while the patch is in bsd.ports.mk any time 
 > a port is registered at installation time it will be portmanager making the 
 > packing list, even if the port is manually installed or with portupgrade.  
 > 
 > I'd like to leave the behavior that way if it is ok with you, if not I can 
 > have it revert the patch after each port is installed and registered so that
 > whenever portmanager is'nt being used bsd.port.mk is in its original state.
 
 It's really up to you. We don't decide what portmanager should be doing,
 you decide that.
 
 -- 
 Pav Lucistnik <pav at oook.cz>
               <pav at FreeBSD.org>
 
 lofi> My _sympathetic_ opinion about kdevelop is that it's a huge pile
 of shit that might at least work okay if used in Linux.
 lofi> My neutral opinion is that it's just a huge pile of shit.



More information about the freebsd-ports-bugs mailing list