On Mar 25, 2012, at 11:39 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > > On Mar 25, 2012, at 11:16 PM, Eric Cronin wrote: > >> >>>>> and a path-based depends_lib like before is appropriate >>>> >>>> A path:-based depends_lib would be ok. a lib:-based depends_lib is not ok >>>> because that would allow a non-MacPorts librpm installed in a system >>>> directory to satisfy the dependency, and we don't want that. >>>> >>> >>> Again you are reacting to a non-existent fact: >>> There is no librpm.dylib being installed. >> >> >> The various flavors that I quickly checked before sending the first e-mail >> all installed unversioned symlinks: >> > > So do you want unversioned symlinks or duplicated ports removed? > > The effort involved in this discussion already likely > exceeds the interest and usage case for rpm in MacPorts.
I have no opinion about many conflicting rpm ports vs just the latest rpm port vs nobody providing something that lets you just do "-lrpm" vs going all the way and adding "port select rpm". The easiest solution would seem to be what I suggested the first time, just mark all the rpm ports as conflicting with one another... I don't use yum or rpm (on mac), I just happened to spot something in the diff that caught my curiosity and confirmed that the ports as they stand have undocumented conflicts. Thanks, Eric _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
