Subject: Re: pkg/32790 ("pkg_chk" uses binary packages when it shouldn't)
To: None <abs@netbsd.org, gnats-admin@netbsd.org, pkgsrc-bugs@netbsd.org,>
From: Jeremy C. Reed <reed@reedmedia.net>
List: pkgsrc-bugs
Date: 02/15/2006 16:05:05
The following reply was made to PR pkg/32790; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: "Jeremy C. Reed" <reed@reedmedia.net>
To: gnats-bugs@netbsd.org
Cc:
Subject: Re: pkg/32790 ("pkg_chk" uses binary packages when it shouldn't)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 08:02:38 -0800 (PST)
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, Matthias Scheler wrote:
> Can it perhaps like this:
> 1.) "a" depends on "b" and "c".
> 2.) "b" and "c" are outdated.
> 3.) "pkg_chk -u" removes "b" and "c".
> 4.) "pkg_chk -u" builds and install "b".
> 5.) "pkg_chk -u" tries to install "a", find the binary package for it and
> runs "pkg_add a.tgz".
> 6.) "pkg_add a.tgz" detects that "b" is missing and install the outdated
> "b" binary package.
I have the problem very frequently (although I never use pkg_chk).
I had suggested a couple weeks ago about adding another option to pkg_add
where you can override or supplement the the dependencies by adding a
package pattern on the command line. But then I realized that may be
overly complictaed (compared to other ideas) since I have to look at
binary package first (looking at @blddep) to see what it depends on and
then compare that with what it should be or is available.
Instead, maybe pkg_add can add an option so that the fixed @blddep is
ignored and just use the @pkgdep range.
Or maybe pkg_chk could move the out-dated packages out of the way so they
are not seen. (This is probably the easiest.)
Jeremy C. Reed
BSD News, BSD tutorials, BSD links
http://www.bsdnewsletter.com/