Subject: RE: Apropos package upgrading.
To: Dave Burgess <>
From: Hubert Feyrer <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 03/20/2001 01:59:34
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Dave Burgess wrote:
> If a compiled package is up to date, I wish there was some way the make
> program could recognize that and not recompile it.  If the package has been
> updated, I want the program to recognize that and recompile it, otherwise if
> I want the package deleted, I'll 'make clean' it.  Giving 'make' access to
> the packages database would work for me; if it could figure out what the
> package name is and compare it to the current package that's installed, it
> would meet my needs.  Even if we don't have an automated method, if we could
> just get the packages to display in the order they were registered, I would
> be a happy person.

Check out the 'bulk-install' target (also set DEPENDS_TARGET=bulk-install
in /etc/mk.conf). It does about what you describe here - install a binary
pkg if it's available and upto date, and 'make package' otherwise (to get
an upto-date binary pkg for later use). A package is considered upto date
if none of it's depending (binar!) packages are newer than itself, and if
also all the pkg files (Makefile, pkg/*, ...) are newer. Check the full
story in pkgsrc/mk/bulk/ 
> 1)  A tag in the Makefile that actually gave the real package name.  Having

make show-var VARNAME=PACKAGE ? 
Or what do you mean? 

> 2)  Some kind of way to enforce package registration dates.  Right now, I
> don't know what the ordering mechanism is, and I'm trusting basically to
> what appears to be blind luck that it works at all.  Once in a while (on a
> couple of servers) the normal ordering has failed me, but it's been OK so
> far: nothing I couldn't solve with a little mental exercise.

ls -latr /var/db/pkg should do the trick, no?
(No, I'm not saying that's optimal :-)

> If I had these two things, a script that reinstalls the entire installed
> base (and just the installed base) based on whether or not a package had
> been updated would be a real possibility.  I've got most of a script like
> that built now, but it's still problematic.  I've got the dependency graph
> about 80% done.  One of the egregious hacks I'm doing is checking the date
> on the 'work' directory against the 'Makefile'.  This works OK, but only
> once.  After that, the '.install' file changes the date and none of the rest
> of the updates work.

I don't know the details within it, but i thought 'make update' was an
attempt to do that. Dunno if that actually works (I never really use it). 

 - Hubert

Hubert Feyrer <>