RFC: Re-work pkgdep/DEPORIGIN?
eikemeier at fillmore-labs.com
Mon Jun 7 18:00:23 GMT 2004
Chuck Swiger wrote:
> Ulrich Spoerlein wrote:
> [ ... ]
>>> The real fix IMHO is to use a strategy similar to what Debian Linux
>>> uses: instead of depending on specific ports, depend on capabilities.
>>> So for example, www/horde2 would depend on webphp, and lang/php4 and
>>> www/mod_php4 would each provide webphp. (I don't know the postgres port
>>> family as well, so I can't readily give an example using it.)
>> I don't know the specific debian facilities, but isn't this overkill?
> Perhaps so, as it it seems other people agree with your opinion.
> To my mind, supporting "capability-based dependencies" would be a win,
> as would supporting what I think of as "loose dependencies" (ie, I
> depend on libiconv, but I don't care whether the system has shlib .2,
> .3, or whatever, just _a_ version), rather than having ports always
> hardcode themselves to looking for a specific version ("strict
> The advantage of loose dependency support would be to reduce the need
> for propogating a ripple of changes to LIB_DEPENDS for possibly hundreds
> of dependent ports when some basic library like readline or libiconv is
The point of doing this is to make sure that new packages are build. You can
already depend on just *some* version, but then an upgrade of the shared lib
will kill all dependend ports (portupgrade keeps old libraries, I know).
There has to be some way to record the used library in the dependent package,
wich brings us back to `capabilities'. This can be done, but we have to do a
proper specification for that.
More information about the freebsd-ports