Hi, I wrote a patch for prt-get that provides a new feature: 'depupdate'. The purpose of this feature is to solve the problem of new deps in the update of a port. An example of this could be a commit to gst-plugins-bad(*), which introduces new dependencies, so in the case you only use the 'update' command, then you'll have an error due to new deps. Bassically, 'depupdate' does the same like 'depinst' but with some differences: [depinst foo] 1. get dependencies of foo, and install missing ones 2. install foo [depupdate foo] 1. get dependencies of foo, and install missing ones 2. update foo What to you think about? Regards, (*) http://crux.nu/gitweb/?p=ports/contrib.git;a=blobdiff;f=gst-plugins-bad/Pkgf... -- Jose V Beneyto | http://sepen.it.cx/
On 03/22/12 14:27, Jose V Beneyto wrote:
Hi,
I wrote a patch for prt-get that provides a new feature: 'depupdate'. sorry, I forgot to attach the patch
-- Jose V Beneyto | http://sepen.it.cx/
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 02:27:02PM +0100, Jose V Beneyto wrote:
Hi,
I wrote a patch for prt-get that provides a new feature: 'depupdate'. The purpose of this feature is to solve the problem of new deps in the update of a port. An example of this could be a commit to gst-plugins-bad(*), which introduces new dependencies, so in the case you only use the 'update' command, then you'll have an error due to new deps.
Bassically, 'depupdate' does the same like 'depinst' but with some differences:
[depinst foo] 1. get dependencies of foo, and install missing ones 2. install foo
[depupdate foo] 1. get dependencies of foo, and install missing ones 2. update foo
What to you think about?
Love it, good work! -- Fredrik Rinnestam
Hi, On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Jose V Beneyto <sepen@crux-arm.nu> wrote:
I wrote a patch for prt-get that provides a new feature: 'depupdate'. The purpose of this feature is to solve the problem of new deps in the update of a port.
What to you think about?
Definitely very useful. Does it mean we could depsysup too? Thanks. -- Emmanuel
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Jose V Beneyto <sepen@crux-arm.nu> wrote:
I wrote a patch for prt-get that provides a new feature: 'depupdate'. The purpose of this feature is to solve the problem of new deps in the update of a port. looks good. Nitpick: the output in the end will print a list of
Hi, On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Emmanuel Benisty <benisty.e@gmail.com> wrote: packages which were "updated", where as some were actually newly installed.
Definitely very useful. Does it mean we could depsysup too? The problem here is that this would potentially install dependencies a user omitted on purpose before, since that's not tracked (in other words prt-get can't decide whether something is really a new dependency). I don't know whether users still do this, but it used to be the case before. That said, if there's both sysup and depsysup I guess it might be okay.
By the way: I wanted to rewrite the commands to look like this: install [--with-deps|--no-deps] update [--with-deps|--no-deps] sysup [--with-deps|--no-deps] with corresponding options for prt-get.conf, so a user can choose whether he/she wants manual control over dependencies or fully automatic handling, with the option do disable it on a per command basis. Before introducing both new depupdate and depsysup commands, I'd suggest considering rewriting the interface to this :). Best, Johannes -- Johannes Winkelmann jw@smts.ch
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:13 PM, Johannes Winkelmann <jw@smts.ch> wrote:
Hi,
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Jose V Beneyto <sepen@crux-arm.nu> wrote:
I wrote a patch for prt-get that provides a new feature: 'depupdate'. The purpose of this feature is to solve the problem of new deps in the update of a port. looks good. Nitpick: the output in the end will print a list of
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Emmanuel Benisty <benisty.e@gmail.com> wrote: packages which were "updated", where as some were actually newly installed.
Definitely very useful. Does it mean we could depsysup too? The problem here is that this would potentially install dependencies a user omitted on purpose before, since that's not tracked (in other words prt-get can't decide whether something is really a new dependency). I don't know whether users still do this, but it used to be the case before. That said, if there's both sysup and depsysup I guess it might be okay.
DISCLAIMER: we all use CRUX our own way so what is true for me may be wrong for you. When I'm modifying a port to remove a dep I would lock the port to avoid this kind of things to happen. In fact, I believe that only depsysup is really useful, depupgrade means you're already aware of the new dep, you could just remove/depinst. With depsysup, even if you're not on #crux on did not follow crux{,-devel}-ml, you're sure you won't miss it.
participants (4)
-
Emmanuel Benisty -
Fredrik Rinnestam -
Johannes Winkelmann -
Jose V Beneyto