Re: Broken binaries again

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>]

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:26:30AM -0500, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2012, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 04:40:08PM +0300, Aleksey Cheusov wrote:
> > > >> - A lot of missing CONFLICTS (they are collected by distbb bulk builds)
> > > >
> > > > Frankly, most of the CONFLICTS should be just removed, not new ones
> > > > added. They are prune to errors and often outdated.
> > > 
> > > Up-to-date and correct information is here.
> > > http://mova.org/~cheusov/pub/pkgsrc-distbb/NetBSD51/HEAD/logs/20120511.1143/META/check_missing_CONFLICTS.html
> > 
> > And? That doesn't mean anything useful. Packages conflict automatically,
> > if the PLIST overlaps. That doesn't require error-prune manual
> > maintainance.
> 
> 
> It is useful.
> 
> Yesterday I had to deinstall three python-based packages due to 
> conflicts that weren't noticed until after the install phase was being 
> done. (I had python26 packages installed and something wanted some 
> python27 feature.)
> 
> A user shouldn't have to attempt to install a package to realize there 
> is a problem.
> 
> The packages should be fixed to version the filenames as needed or add 
> CONFLICTS.

If you install from binary packages, tools could tell you before by
doing the check as soon as they know what needs to be installed. If you
install from source, sorry, you lost. Considering options, dynamic
PLISTs, PLIST_SUBST and the like, it won't work reliable.

Joerg