John Fieber <> wrote:
>For an update to work, files that must be preserved (shared
>libraries mainly) over an update must be tagged.

This is why I said my approach only worked for `minor' updates - which
means those that don't bump library versions etc (eg XFree86-3.3.3 to

>  If libfoo-1.0
>is installed and I upgrade to libfoo-2.3, the libfoo-1.0 package
>should be removed except /usr/local/share/  Then
>libfoo-2.3 gets installed and *inherits*
>/usr/local/share/ in its +CONTENTS so that if you
>want to do a wholesale removal of the libfoo package in the
>future, you can do it.

The problem with this approach is that you lose the fact that xbar
depends on libfoo-1.0, whilst xyzzy depends on libfoo-2.3.  This
makes updating libfoo-2.3 to libfoo-3.1 messy - especially if
xbar has been deleted in the interim (meaning is
no longer needed).

I'd prefer to see the upgrade delete the unnecessary bits of
libfoo-1.0, but leave the db/pkg entry in place - with a cut-down
+CONTENTS.  This makes it easier to get rid of the remaining bits when
any dependencies are deleted.  (For extra marks, add a flag so that
libfoo-1.0 is deleted automatically when the last dependency is
removed).  (Of course, as Chuck Robey points out, this becomes much
harder when config files are taken into account).

Kris Kennaway <> wrote:
>I've never found the +REQUIRED_BY data to be consistently maintained for me -

I've seen the same, but I've never bothered digging into the problem.
Feel free to look into the problem.  It might be worthwhile asking
Jordan if he is aware of the problem and/or has any ideas.

Chuck Robey <> wrote:
>Don't forget, with all the gnome and gtk ports (and the kde things)

tcl and tk also install various version-specific information (and has
anyone else noticed that tk depends on X11 (ie XFree86) and the
XFree86 configuration (xf86site.def) changes depending on whether or
not tk exists).


To Unsubscribe: send mail to
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to