Re: a better idea for package dependencies
On Tue, May 09, 2000 at 10:29:12AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: Hopefully some day, parts of the /usr/src bits will be installed with the pkg_* utils, but today only things in /usr/ports are used with the pkg_* utils. ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/doc/packages/ :-) [ For those that can't be bothered to look, that's every document, in every format, in every language we have, one package per doc/format/lang combination. ] N -- Internet connection, $19.95 a month. Computer, $799.95. Modem, $149.95. Telephone line, $24.95 a month. Software, free. USENET transmission, hundreds if not thousands of dollars. Thinking before posting, priceless. Somethings in life you can't buy. For everything else, there's MasterCard. -- Graham Reed, in the Scary Devil Monastery To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: a better idea for package dependencies
On Mon, May 08, 2000 at 06:30:17PM -0400, Kenneth Wayne Culver wrote: Actually, it has to do with the pkg_ commands, which I believe are built when you make world... yes. and aren't part of the ports, And are only used for Ports. Thus their behavior defines the behavior of the Ports Collection. Thus it is a Ports issue. IF the pkg_* utils were ports, how would you install them?? -- -- David([EMAIL PROTECTED]) To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: a better idea for package dependencies
On Tue, 9 May 2000, David O'Brien wrote: On Mon, May 08, 2000 at 06:30:17PM -0400, Kenneth Wayne Culver wrote: Actually, it has to do with the pkg_ commands, which I believe are built when you make world... yes. and aren't part of the ports, And are only used for Ports. Thus their behavior defines the behavior of the Ports Collection. Thus it is a Ports issue. IF the pkg_* utils were ports, how would you install them?? -- David([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Am I missing something? I thought ports only need some .mk files and make? (Along with tools to get those there, including the port itself, at most fetch or ftp, and tar?) To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: a better idea for package dependencies
On Tue, May 09, 2000 at 01:23:09PM -0400, Adam wrote:
And are only used for Ports. Thus their behavior defines the behavior of
the Ports Collection. Thus it is a Ports issue. IF the pkg_* utils were
ports, how would you install them??
Am I missing something? I thought ports only need some .mk files and
make? (Along with tools to get those there, including the port itself, at
most fetch or ftp, and tar?)
Packages (ie, those things that pkg_{create,add,delete,info} operate on
are created with in /usr/ports. When one builds a port and installs it,
pkg_{create,add} is run on the backend behind your back. If you
``make package'' yourself, you will get a package tarball. These are the
files on the FTP site and CDROM disc in the package/ dir. You install
these by ``pkg_add foo''. You delete the package (ie, the thing built in
/usr/ports) with ``pkg_delete foo''.
Hopefully some day, parts of the /usr/src bits will be installed with the
pkg_* utils, but today only things in /usr/ports are used with the pkg_*
utils.
--
-- David([EMAIL PROTECTED])
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: a better idea for package dependencies
On Tue, 9 May 2000 10:29:12 -0700, "David O'Brien" [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Packages (ie, those things that pkg_{create,add,delete,info} operate on
are created with in /usr/ports.
Not necessarily, and certainly not in the very beginning. I remember
a number of times seeing a third-party software vendor who provided
their product in that form, just as many third-party vendors now ship
*.rpm files (and always shipped SCO and Solaris ``packages'').
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | O Siem / The fires of freedom
Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame
MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: a better idea for package dependencies
On Tue, May 09, 2000 at 01:36:03PM -0400, Garrett Wollman wrote: Not necessarily, and certainly not in the very beginning. I remember a number of times seeing a third-party software vendor who provided their product in that form, just as many third-party vendors now ship *.rpm files (and always shipped SCO and Solaris ``packages''). Yes. But with the Ports Collection being the biggest consumer of pkg_*, there is more pkg_* clue on [EMAIL PROTECTED] than [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- David([EMAIL PROTECTED]) To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: a better idea for package dependencies
On Tue, 9 May 2000, David O'Brien wrote:
On Tue, May 09, 2000 at 01:23:09PM -0400, Adam wrote:
And are only used for Ports. Thus their behavior defines the behavior of
the Ports Collection. Thus it is a Ports issue. IF the pkg_* utils were
ports, how would you install them??
Am I missing something? I thought ports only need some .mk files and
make? (Along with tools to get those there, including the port itself, at
most fetch or ftp, and tar?)
Packages (ie, those things that pkg_{create,add,delete,info} operate on
are created with in /usr/ports. When one builds a port and installs it,
pkg_{create,add} is run on the backend behind your back. If you
``make package'' yourself, you will get a package tarball. These are the
files on the FTP site and CDROM disc in the package/ dir. You install
these by ``pkg_add foo''. You delete the package (ie, the thing built in
/usr/ports) with ``pkg_delete foo''.
Hopefully some day, parts of the /usr/src bits will be installed with the
pkg_* utils, but today only things in /usr/ports are used with the pkg_*
utils.
Ahh I see now that I try renaming pkg_create and installing a port,
however the program is not needed until the very end when it registers (or
tries to make an actual package if you "make package"). I cant comment on
the complexity of registering a port as an installed package because I
havent read the code, but it doesnt look too complex according to whats in
/var/db/pkg... perhaps more makefile things could be done to register a
package. I am seeing +COMMENT+CONTENTS +DESC
in a simple port dir, and if it depends on other things,
+REQUIRED_BY... thinking optimistically that this stuff could be acheived
with simple commands like echo myport /var/db/foo/+REQUIRED_BY, and
maybe grep to help with removing things from REQ...
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: a better idea for package dependencies
On Tue, May 09, 2000 at 03:24:25PM -0400, Adam wrote: I cant comment on the complexity of registering a port as an installed package because I havent read the code, but it doesnt look too complex according to whats in /var/db/pkg... perhaps more makefile things could be done to register a package. I am seeing +COMMENT+CONTENTS +DESC in a simple port dir, and if it depends on other things, +REQUIRED_BY... thinking optimistically that this stuff could be acheived with simple commands like echo myport /var/db/foo/+REQUIRED_BY, and maybe grep to help with removing things from REQ... PLEASE get a CLUE about pkg_* and ports BEFORE commenting further. -- -- David([EMAIL PROTECTED]) To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: a better idea for package dependencies
On Tue, May 09, 2000 at 03:24:25PM -0400, Adam wrote: I cant comment on the complexity of registering a port as an installed package because I havent read the code, but it doesnt look too complex according to whats in /var/db/pkg... perhaps more makefile things could be done to register a package. I am seeing +COMMENT+CONTENTS +DESC in a simple port dir, and if it depends on other things, +REQUIRED_BY... thinking optimistically that this stuff could be acheived with simple commands like echo myport /var/db/foo/+REQUIRED_BY, and maybe grep to help with removing things from REQ... PLEASE get a CLUE about pkg_* and ports BEFORE commenting further. -- David([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Good suggestion. Did some reading in bsd.port.mk and came up with the basis for a hack to get a port installed without pkg_*. If only total elegant solutions are entertained here then I will say no further, but here goes: cd /usr/ports/foo/pkg_create make NO_PKG_REGISTER install (pkg_create gets installed but not recorded) Since you claim superior knowledge about ports than me, I wont bother explaining it. I'm only trying to satisfy your original question. " IF the pkg_* utils were ports, how would you install them??" To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: a better idea for package dependencies
On Tue, May 09, 2000 at 05:01:02PM -0400, Adam wrote: Since you claim superior knowledge about ports than me, I wont bother explaining it. I'm only trying to satisfy your original question. " IF the pkg_* utils were ports, how would you install them??" I said that to make you think *WHY* pkg_* is in /usr/src and not /usr/ports, even though I said pkg_* issues are purely a ports issue. Geez. -- -- David([EMAIL PROTECTED]) To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: a better idea for package dependencies
On Tue, 9 May 2000, David O'Brien wrote: On Mon, May 08, 2000 at 06:30:17PM -0400, Kenneth Wayne Culver wrote: Actually, it has to do with the pkg_ commands, which I believe are built when you make world... yes. and aren't part of the ports, And are only used for Ports. Thus their behavior defines the behavior of the Ports Collection. Thus it is a Ports issue. IF the pkg_* utils were ports, how would you install them?? Oh, will you get off it? Finally someone posts something about a *technical* issue, it's got at least some reasonable claim to be on the list (it's sure involving sysinstall, if obliquely) and it's not giving a lot of noise. There must be better things to complain about. I could offer you maybe a dozen if you're not feeling particularly investigatory right now. Chuck Robey| Interests include C Java programming, FreeBSD, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | electronics, communications, and signal processing. New Year's Resolution: I will not sphroxify gullible people into looking up fictitious words in the dictionary. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: a better idea for package dependencies
On Mon, 8 May 2000, Kenneth Wayne Culver wrote: pkg_delete -d package-version (or some other unused switch for dependancy) This might be a good option, but there should also be an automatic mode, whether or not it's the default. remove pkg_version_dependant [Y] ? y removed! remove pkg_version_dependant2 [Y] ? y error: some_other_package depends on pkg_version_dependant2! pkg_version_dependant2 is required by the following packages: foo-1.0 bar-2.0a blee-0.0001 remove pkg_version_dependant2 [Y] ? y Kris In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate. -- Charles Forsythe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: a better idea for package dependencies
Actually, it has to do with the pkg_ commands, which I believe are built when you make world... and aren't part of the ports, so I assumed that since these are part of -current, and changes would be made to -current, it's better to send to -current. Sorry for any inconvenience. = | Kenneth Culver | FreeBSD: The best OS around.| | Unix Systems Administrator | ICQ #: 24767726 | | and student at The | AIM: muythaibxr | | The University of Maryland, | Website: (Under Construction) | | College Park. | http://www.wam.umd.edu/~culverk/| = On Mon, 8 May 2000, David O'Brien wrote: On Mon, May 08, 2000 at 02:26:42PM -0400, Kenneth Wayne Culver wrote: Instead of automatically deleteing the dependencies, I think maybe it This belongs on [EMAIL PROTECTED], not [EMAIL PROTECTED] has it has *nothing* to do with -CURRENT. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: a better idea for package dependencies
Alright, I'll try to do it after I get something working. = | Kenneth Culver | FreeBSD: The best OS around.| | Unix Systems Administrator | ICQ #: 24767726 | | and student at The | AIM: muythaibxr | | The University of Maryland, | Website: (Under Construction) | | College Park. | http://www.wam.umd.edu/~culverk/| = On Mon, 8 May 2000, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Mon, 8 May 2000, Kenneth Wayne Culver wrote: pkg_delete -d package-version (or some other unused switch for dependancy) This might be a good option, but there should also be an automatic mode, whether or not it's the default. remove pkg_version_dependant [Y] ? y removed! remove pkg_version_dependant2 [Y] ? y error: some_other_package depends on pkg_version_dependant2! pkg_version_dependant2 is required by the following packages: foo-1.0 bar-2.0a blee-0.0001 remove pkg_version_dependant2 [Y] ? y Kris In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate. -- Charles Forsythe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
