Why does security/amavisd-new depend on db3?

Craig Boston craig at yekse.gank.org
Tue Nov 15 10:48:48 PST 2005

On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 09:44:25AM -0800, Michael C. Shultz wrote:
> Anyways, the extra, unnessesary and INCORRECT entries in +CONTENTS would 
> indeed have caused portmanager problems a short while ago.  Portmanager used 
> to only use the +CONTENTS file to determine dependencies and in this case 
> that would definitely cause trouble.  

It bites portupgrade users too, since it builds its database mostly out
of the +CONTENTS files.  Sometimes things get far enough out of whack
that not even pkgdb -F can help.

> Bottom line is portmanager 0.3.5 should be able to build
> security/amavisd-new as intended and by my own tests it does.  My
> understanding of the bsd.ports.mk language is poor, but 5027 - 5034
> look suspicious.  
> Probably no one cares but I can't think of a single good reason to
> transvers dependent port's dependencies when adding dependencies to

Don't quote me on this as it's pure extrapolation, but I think the
reason may have to do with binary packages.  As far as I can remember,
they have always listed _ALL_ dependencies in the top level package,
presumably to make it easier to figure out everything you need to
install one without having to recursively extract things. (?)

If that's the case, they would have to be listed in +CONTENTS for
pkg_create -b to work.  There may be a better way to gather the
information though, perhaps by looking at the package database to see
what is actually installed rather than re-generating the list every

Perhaps one of the portmgrs can help clarify the reasons for the

> The fact they do should no longer cause portmanager troubles but if
> Jiawei is to be believed it looks like portupgrade might be being
> negatively effected by these unnessesary and incorrect entries..

I haven't tried it but it might could still cause problems if some of
the ports had been manually installed.


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list