Subject: March patches re: bin-install
To: None <email@example.com>
From: J Chapman Flack <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/24/2005 10:07:47
There were some patches I circulated on this list in March for some funky
1. real-su-bin-install forgets it's doing a bin-install, so you wind up
getting a source install when it's not what you asked for
2. tgz's cached in packages/All actually harmful, because they prevent the
search of BINPKG_SITES for their preqrequisites, causing bin install to
fail unless all the prerequisites are cached in packages/All too.
3. given DEPENDS+= foo>=1.2nb2:../../bar/foo
and the bar/foo Makefile provides 1.2nb3
even if a 1.2nb2 binary exists, which would satisfy the requirement,
it is ignored and a source build of 1.2nb3 is done.
The needed information on which package version was actually required
was already present in PKGNAME_REQD, a variable set but never used within
bsd.pkg.mk; the fix was as simple as ... using it.
The patch does not change what happens if you explicitly cd bar/foo and
run make; you're still assured of building the current 1.2nb3 in that case.
The patches are in http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-pkg/2005/03/20/0025.html
More complete explanations and rationale for the changes are in
I think I made a mistake at first using a subject: line that seemed more
niche-related so it may have gone under many people's radar, and starting off
with such complete explanations that it just seemed like too much to read.
So this is just a short note to mention again the patches are there, and IF
there's anything unclear about the rationales, they can be found too in the
Should I make a PR do you think just to keep them visible? I'm curious if
anyone sees effects in the patches that look like they would break something