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 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 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, 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 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, 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 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
< 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 01:23:09PM -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, 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 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
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
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
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
