Recent bsd.port.mk changes
Alexander Leidinger
Alexander at Leidinger.net
Fri Apr 18 02:21:24 PDT 2003
On 18 Apr 2003 02:14:44 -0400
Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus at marcuscom.com> wrote:
> > The major benefit of this change is that it prevents people from
> > installing one copy of the port over an older version, thereby
> > screwing up their /var/db/pkg and possibly leaving orphan files lying
> > around. I think that is important enough that it should stay in, in
> > some form.
>
> Yes, I can see the advantage, but it now adds extra work (for me, maybe
> others). The reason I Cc'd ports was to get an idea if others thought
> the same way I did.
I do the same (it makes sure the port is PREFIX safe and it makes it
easy to check if the plist is correct).
> > 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. 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. We
> could then add a make deinstall-all target to handle deinstalling all
> packages with the same origin. Something like what's attached.
I like this idea.
Bye,
Alexander.
--
Weird enough for government work.
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net
GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7
More information about the freebsd-ports
mailing list