Am 16.04.18 um 21:13 schrieb Tijl Coosemans:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 20:11:33 +0200 Stefan Esser <> wrote:
>> When not even pkg can deal with this situation, how should portmaster?
>> The packages are built without consideration for the requirements of a
>> running system, and pkg sees all the meta-information of all installed
>> packages and the one being processed and can e.g. see, that files will
>> conflict (which portmaster can only do after completely building the
>> port, which means that this is long after the decision to use that port
>> has been required).
>> The lack of consideration given by port maintainers is quite frustrating,
>> since it requires a lot of effort to work around the issues caused.
> Like I said, IMHO it's not your problem, so you don't need to work around
> it and you don't have to feel frustrated by it.  Without an entry in MOVED
> there's no way for portmaster or pkg to know that the old akonadi needs to
> be replaced with akonadi-kde4.  If any user contacts you about this you
> can forward them to kde@ because they created the problem.
> IMHO, entries in MOVED should stay for at least a year, if not several
> years, so kde@ should restore the kde4 MOVED entries and give the kde5
> ports a -kde5 suffix or something.  Hopefully there aren't that many users
> yet because you can't create MOVED entries for this move.

Seems that I misunderstood your reply ...

Yes, adding -kde5 to all ports that have got origins previously used for
KDE4 ports, and MOVED entries for those KDE4 ports would solve the issue.

It would have helped, if either port origin or package name of the KDE4
ports had been kept, since that would have allowed to link the ports and
packages over the change by the unchanged attribute.

The absolute minimum would have been a complete set of "pkg set -o" commands
to adjust the registered origins of all affected and installed KDE4 ports in
an UPDATING entry.

I'm not sure that poudriere can create packages that let pkg upgrade succeed
without file conflicts, unless the relation is revealed by the MOVED entries.

So, I agree with your proposal (previously also suggested by me) of MOVED
entries for the KDE4 ports and new non-conflicting origins for those KDE5
ports that re-use the previous KDE4 origins (obviously without MOVED entries,
but since the package names (without the version) remain unchanged for those
KDE5 ports, automatic port and package upgrades can work for them.

Regards, STefan
_______________________________________________ mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to ""

Reply via email to