Problems with +CONTENTS being messed up by pkg_delete -f

Robert Noland rnoland at
Wed Jul 18 23:11:04 UTC 2007

On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 15:56 -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
> If you "pkg_delete -f" a package and then install the port again (but 
> after it has been bumped up a version), then the +CONTENTS of ports that 
> require the original port will be incorrect.  This apparently messes up 
> programs like portmanager.  There is a sense in which one should never do 
> "pkg_delete -f" and expect /var/db/pkg to keep its integrety - on the 
> other hand this is exactly what "make deinstall" does.
> My feeling is that the integrety of /var/db/pkg should be maintained 
> across a "make deinstall" and subsequent "make install" of a bumped 
> version of the port.
> This is my suggestion.  When a "pkg_delete -f" is executed, it looks 
> through +REQUIRED_BY of the port it is going to delete, and modifies the 
> +CONTENTS file of each of them, replacing lines like
> @pkgdep xineramaproto-1.1.2
> @comment DEPORIGIN:x11/xineramaproto
> to maybe something like
> @comment DELDEPORIGIN:x11/xineramaproto
> ("deleted dependency origin").  A subsequent "make install" of 
> x11/xineramaproto should look through the +CONTENTS of all entries in 
> /var/db/pkg and change these lines to something like
> @pkgdep xineramaproto-1.1.3
> @comment DEPORIGIN:x11/xineramaproto

Hrm, not quite what I had in mind...  I don't want to misrepresent that
a port was built against a newer version of a dependency.  What I was
hoping for would be that a port when reinstalled would not list both the
current version of a dependency as well as a previous version of the
same origin (which it aquired via the +CONTENTS of some other direct
dependency).  It should only list the currently installed version of
that origin.

That way it is still possible to determine that the interim port was
built against an older version.  I just want the +CONTENTS file to
accurately list the versions that a given port was built against.


> A further benefit of this approach is that one could also accurately 
> reconstruct the +REQUIRED_BY of the port just reinstalled - right now this 
> is left empty and thus inaccurate.
> What do you guys think?  I know I could write the code for this quite 
> quickly, but I want some feedback before I work on it.
> Stephen
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ports at mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe at"

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list