ports/89164: [PATCH] /var/db/pkg/{portname}/+CONTENTS files sometimes contain wrong data

[Michael C. Shultz]

The following reply was made to PR ports/89164; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: "Michael C. Shultz" <ringworm01 at gmail.com>
To: pav at freebsd.org
Cc: bug-followup at freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ports/89164: [PATCH] /var/db/pkg/{portname}/+CONTENTS files sometimes contain wrong data
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 09:02:31 -0800

 On Thursday 17 November 2005 09:06, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
 > > > > > > >  Could you send the standalone bsd.port.mk patch to this PR?
 > > > > > >
 > > > > > > Sorry, should have said where it was, gets put
 > > > > > > into /usr/local/share/portmanager but I'll attach the patch to
 > > > > > > this message anyways.
 > > > > >
 > > > > > So this incorporates your portmanager into bsd.port.mk? I'm afraid
 > > > > > we can't possibly include this in the official ports tree without
 > > > > > making portmanager part of base system, do we?
 > > > > >
 > > > > > What kind of feedback you're expecting from us, then?
 > > > >
 > > > > Most important is that you recognize there is a problem with
 > > > > how +CONTENTS files are generated.
 > > >
 > > > Yes, there is a long standing problem and we're aware of it. Sadly, no
 > > > workable solution was submitted so far (at least I haven't found any PR
 > > > filed against it).
 > >
 > > Well portmanager in base would solve the problem.  I'd say I could
 > > just pull out the portion that generates the list but portmanager is very
 > > integrated so that would be a lot of work for no really good reason.
 > >
 > > It would be easy to name it something else and disable unneeded
 > > features however.....
 >
 > I think fixing the problem within the scope of existing tools (sh/awk
 > soup under /usr/ports/Mk) is doable and much more preferable.
 >
 > > > > Wether or not you all choose to make portmanager as a part
 > > > > of the base system is up to you all,  I really just wanted to let
 > > > > you know that when portmanager is installed in a user system
 > > > > I'd like it to make the adjustment to bsd.ports.mk.  If portmanager
 > > > > is removed I'll make sure it smoothly returns bsd.ports.mk
 > > > > to a usefull state as part of the deinstall process.
 > > >
 > > > You're free to do whatever you want in your software. Just note that
 > > > you have to patch bsd.ports.mk every time user cvsuped the tree, not
 > > > only on portmanager install/deinstall.
 > >
 > > It checks for make -V PORTMANGER output every time a port is
 > > upgraded/rebuilt, if no output it reapplies the patch.
 > >
 > > The thing to be aware of though is while the patch is in bsd.ports.mk any
 > > time a port is registered at installation time it will be portmanager
 > > making the packing list, even if the port is manually installed or with
 > > portupgrade.
 > >
 > > I'd like to leave the behavior that way if it is ok with you, if not I
 > > can have it revert the patch after each port is installed and registered
 > > so that whenever portmanager is'nt being used bsd.port.mk is in its
 > > original state.
 >
 > It's really up to you. We don't decide what portmanager should be doing,
 > you decide that.
 
 Thank you, when its ready I'll just do a normal submission on 0.3.6 then.
 
 -Mike