On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 06:49:45PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg@britannica.bec.de> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 10:39:14PM +0000, Greg Troxel wrote:
> >> Log Message:
> >> Reword description of rebuild-tree, and point to pkg_delete -f as a
> >> possible cause of inconsistencies. Remove comment about make replace,
> >> since it does not, absent pkgsrc/mk bugs, result in incorrect
> >> dependency records.
> >
> > I'm not sure. If it creates a conflict, that might actually happen for
> > make replace.
> 
> Hmm.  I haven't seen it.  What make replace does is save the
> +REQUIRED_BY, remove the package, put the new package in place, and then
> +restore +REQUIRED_BY, and then patch up every depending package to
> +point to the new place.  I'm not sure wha you mean by conflict - I can
> +believe, on reflection, that a failed make replace can leave things
> +inconsistent.  I just didn't want to give the incorrect impression that
> +normal make replace messes up +REQUIRED_BY files.

The patch-up part is IMO completely bogus. It should die together with
the exact match logic in pkg_add. I plan to remove that next.

Just to be clear, currently pkg_add checks if the a dependency is
already fulfilled and if not, if the package used to build it is
available. That can play some interesting games with binary packages...

Joerg