One issue with this that I've just run into the other day:

 CPAN Bundles.

To wit, I installed several of the p5-* ports, all of which went fine.

Then I used CPAN to fetch some other modules that I needed. Of course,
the CPAN module wanted to upgrade itself (as always :-) so I obliged.
By installing Bundle::CPAN.

Unfortunately, this upgrades a few modules that were already installed
from ports.

This of course invalidates the data in /var/db/pkg/*/

So, from a personal perspective, having the ability to uninstall CPAN
modules through the ports system is nearly useless to me. The
dependency graph gets broken thanks to CPAN idiocy like always following
dependencies even when they're already installed. For one reason or
another, CPAN does not notice modules pre-installed through ports.

-Adam Thompson
 athompsocommerced.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "obecian" <obecianpacketninja.net>
To: <portsopenbsd.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: ports html2wml & Font-TTF

> Very important observation. To complicate matters, the ports
> exist to provide easier insertion and extraction of programs as
> we choose to install / deinstall without a multitude of files
> that can be orphaned from whatever virgin source was thought
> to have been 'uninstalled'. This does not bode well perl scripts
> that can be run by a user that 'automagically' reach out to CPAN
> for modules. Clearly scripts of this nature are written so that
> users do not have to go through the motions of finding all the
> dependencies themselves, but create bad side-effects for ports
> perhaps.
>
> --
> Mark Grimes <obecianopenbsd.org>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 10:30:36PM -0600, joshua stein wrote:
> > Shell Hung wrote:
> > > Last time I posted this two ports here, and no one report ..:-)
> > >
> > > I did some changes on this two ports, please review, thank you
very
> > > much !!
> >
> > I'm still confused as to why we still require formal ports written
for
> > perl modules. How many of the modules in the current ports tree
> > actually require patches or any customization at all, other than
> > specifying the DISTNAME, MASTER_SITE_SUBDIR for CPAN, and the
category
> > name?
> >
> > It would seem to me that a simple interface to fetching CPAN modules
> > would be a lot easier than adding all of these ports scattered
> > throughout the tree.
> >
>

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]