package-depend oddity (was: Re: [ports-i386@pointyhat.freebsd.org: dspampd-2.00.r2 failed on i386 5] )

[Ion-Mihai Tetcu]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 17:04:41 -0400
Kris Kennaway <kris at obsecurity.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 11:30:15PM +0300, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> > 
> >  [ moved on ports@ as I don't want to bother only Kris :) ]
> > 
> > The story:
> > 
> > On pointyhat mail/dspampd suddenly fails to package because it
> > wants to depend on both clamav and clamav-devel.
> > 
> >  I believe 
> > 20050207:  Honour OPTIONS if PACKAGE_BUILDING or BATCH are defined.
> > to be responsible (I was doing kinda the same thing in the
> > Makefile).
> > 
> > I have a patch that should/will (as everything it's the same for me
> > - package is OK, package-depends-list is not) fix the problem, but,
> > strangely on my 6 and 5.4 machines I don't see any error (but the
> > port depends on both clamavs):
> 
> Because clamav-devel and clamav install the same files, so whichever
> one installs first will satisfy the Makefile dependency check for
> both.  i.e. you can't be sure which one is actually installed.
> 
> This is flagged as an error on PH because it installs dependencies by
> pkg_add, which has conflict-checking and won't spam clamav with
> clamav-devel (or vice-versa).
> 
> > > Maybe (if something it depends on was broken).  Alternatively, a
> > > dependency must have changed the version of clamav it depends on,
> > > which caused your port to suddenly depend on both (an
> > > impossibility).
> > 
> > Now, I don't see any other package that depends on clamav*
> > Could someone explain to me what's happening here ? Why does it
> > fail on pontyhat, but not an any other machine ? I've tested on a 6
> > and a 5.4 cvsup'ed a few minutes ago and a 5.4 cvsup'ed a few
> > months ago. Why does it depend on both clamavs ? 
> 
> From some dependency..you'd have to trace through to see which one.

In this case I see no way to prevent the error. The patch I have, while
would bring the port to contemporary style (more or less) won't fix
this (it doesn't change anything, mic alternative to "Honour OPTIONS
if PACKAGE_BUILDING..." is just completely redundant now).

I got to catch some sleep now, I'll look again tomorrow, maybe I'll see
something.


-- 
IOnut
Unregistered ;) FreeBSD "user"
  "Intellectual Property" is   nowhere near as valuable   as "Intellect"