[NEEDS RESOLVE] graphics/netpbm*
jhell at DataIX.net
Fri May 21 17:27:08 UTC 2010
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
After a recent upgrade of some ports that require netpbm as a dependency,
they compiled and have installed graphics/netpbm on my system.
The above is perfectly fine until the point that I realized that it was
installed and what I already had was graphics/netpbm-devel on my system.
Upon closer inspection of both; one (graphics/netpbm) is the master port
and the other (graphics/netpbm-devel) is the slave port or meta-port and
neither of these list any CONFLICTS besides the master port listing
mgetty-* as a dependency.
- From first glance through this matter it seems like these were created to
ease the administration of both ports; but can this be done and yet still
track CONFLICTS properly ? If so can the conflicts be added to these...
If not, can these two ports be separated ? I don't see any convenience
having a meta-port for these ports.
And yes I know about the WITH_NETPBM_DEVEL=yes, but there is no obvious
place where it is documented that you should use this to only get the
graphics/netpbm-devel port and if you don't, then you risk installing both
when you upgrade any software that requires graphics/netpbm.
With how these ports are configured right now if you define
WITH_NETPBM_DEVEL=yes and try to upgrade the netpbm-devel installed port
it will fail to upgrade itself if graphics/netpbm has a listed
With all do respect,
- --- Makefile.orig 2010-05-21 12:54:53.241692095 -0400
+++ Makefile 2010-05-21 13:25:36.175294963 -0400
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
- -# New ports collection makefile for: netpm-devel
+# New ports collection makefile for: netpbm-devel
# Date created: 25.May 2006
# Whom: dirk.meyer at dinoex.sub.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the freebsd-ports