[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: add PKG_INSTALL_TRY_UPGRADE -- please review
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost> wrote:
> matthew sporleder <msporleder%gmail.com@localhost> writes:
>> Anyway, It looks like -U was a previously undocumented option, but it
>> definitely does look like a better option than just -u.
> Sorry, I was confused. The new option is -D, which is in the pkg_add
> man page.
>> -u, -U, -U -u don't fail if the package is not already installed.
>> They do the right thing and just install.
> OK, but.
>> I am still reading up on where using parts of the replace framework
>> would be better than just using -U.
>> I like the package backups but what else?
> The backups are IMHO not important.
> The point is that semantically what you are doing is exactly what make
> replace does. It's an abstraction violation to open-code this again
> separately. The other part is that make replace updates metadata about
> which packages have had dependencies replaced out from under them, via
> the unsafe_depends flags. See mk/pkgformat/pkg/replace.mk for a
> detailed explanation.
> - pkg_add -U should set the unsafe_depends flags, and then the
> unsafe_depends handling can be removed from make replace
> - pkg_add should have arguments to update a single package, and not try
> to update other packages recursively, and make replace should use
> but those things aren't yet true. Even if they are fixed, what you are
> trying to do is "install the package, and if it's already installed,
> replace it instead", and I don't think we should have repeated logic to
> do the same thing.
> Why do you not want this to use the replace target as a subroutine?
- I just haven't tried it yet.
- I'm not sure how to reliably test if the package is already
installed and make replace doesn't handle it for me like pkg_add does.
Main Index |
Thread Index |