[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Broken binaries again
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 04:40:08PM +0300, Aleksey Cheusov wrote:
>> Up-to-date and correct information is here.
> And? That doesn't mean anything useful.
This just means that existing conflicts are not properly registered
as documented in pkg_summary(5).
> Packages conflict automatically, if the PLIST overlaps.
> That doesn't require error-prune manual maintainance.
Several years ago thinking the same way I proposed to remove CONFLICTS
from most of the packages. Someone (dholland@?) said "CONFLICTS is
an essential part of package metainformation". Now I realize he was right.
pkg_add is smart enough to detect conflicts based on file list (and it
does) but it
cannot be used for managing hundreds of packages efficiently.
This is why nih and pkgin exist. NIH before running pkg_*
builds so called "update plan", i.e. a list of packages to be
installed and/or removed
from the system. This is where explicit CONFLICTS entries come into play.
Without it a correct update plan just cannot be built because at this moment
packages' file list is not available yet.
AFAIK pkgin works the same way.
Main Index |
Thread Index |