Direct or indirect libdependencies (using the libintl.so.8 case)
yanefbsd at gmail.com
Wed Jun 2 10:45:15 UTC 2010
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 1:36 AM, Michel Talon <talon at lpthe.jussieu.fr> wrote:
> Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> > followed consistently. I know that the decisions are made on a
>> > case-by-case
>> > basis, but for my taste, it is too much case-by-case.
>> I haven't done portmaster -af in a long time, but unfortunately some
>> things aren't working as expected (gthumb segfaults on certain
>> directories), so here we go...
> In fact these remarks combined show that there are fundamental problems
> in the port system, a thing which has been remarked since a long time,
> but is regularly denied by many people. Basically it is not in a shape
> to be reliably maintained by automatic procedures, contrary to some
> concurrence. How to solve the problem, i don't know.
The lack of reverse dependencies in the pkg_install metadata and
the fact that pkg_install falls back to ports and INDEX (which is
produced by ports) for pkg_version is partly to blame.
The cruxt of the majority of the issues is with the larger package
groups, and the fact that there are some implicit reverse dependencies
that aren't properly resolved because they aren't present in ports.
There are a handful people looking into pkg_install right now
(sort of similar to the way that sysinstall is being treated right
now); it's my goal to take a crack at fixing this problem when I get
the archive(5) pieces in and pkg_install locking work as well. Other
folks are working at fixing how everything is componentized and fits
together in the big picture.
So in summary... there will be a lot of good work coming out of
this area as well, so hopefully these next couple of FreeBSD releases
will be much easier to maintain than the past couple have been from a
More information about the freebsd-ports