question about "pkg install"

[Chris Rees]

On 08/23/14 09:14, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> On 23/08/2014 08:40, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
>>>      I have a program (several, actually) I need to install from the
>>>> generic package repository.
>>>>      These programs depend on openldap-client; however I have
>>>> openldap-sasl-client installed.  In my experience the two have been
>>>> interchangeable when compiling from ports.
>>>>      Is there a way to tell 'pkg install' "Yeah, I know it
>>>> says openldap-client, but the same version of
>>>> openldap-sasl-client satisfies the dependency"?  Or do I just use 'pkg
>>>> install -M' and hope everything works?
>> I had this issue in the past, too, and am not aware of a solution.
> There isn't a good solution for this right now if you're using the
> packages from the official FreeBSD repositories.  You get the default
> dependency chain which is baked into the packages.  Which means
> openldap-client rather than openldap-sasl-client[*].
>
> If you need to change options for various ports, then the best solution
> is to compile your own.  Give poudriere a go -- it is surprisingly easy
> and unstressful to use.  Build yourself a repo with your customized
> ports in it and away you go.
>
> We do have plans for improving the ports behaviour in this reguard.
> Dependencies based on Provides/Requires/Conflicts should help a lot, as
> will sub-packages and dependency version-ranges.  This stuff is all on
> the roadmap, but there's a lot of work to do to get from here to there,
> so don't expect it to all start magically working tomorrow.
>
> 	Cheers,
>
> 	Matthew
>
> [*] In this case openldap-client and openldap-sasl-client are clearly
> API compatible, since on compilation, it's not a problem to swap from
> one to the other.  The question when using binary packages is if they
> are ABI compatible, which is a whole different kettle of fish.
>
Hum, I wonder if we couldn't just add sasl support by default?

Xin Li, would there be a downside to this?

Chris

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.