[Midnightbsd-users] Maybe a conception error with mports?

[Stevan Tiefert]

Chris Reinhardt wrote:
>> I've installed binaries from 0.1-RELEASE-CD-ROM, like e.g gettext-0.14.5_2.
>> If you try to install a program like linux-firefox via ports witch
>> depends on this already installed binary (here gettext) the make
>> procedure fetches, compiles and try to install gettext and pkg_add is
>> going to stop with an error, concerning an already installed gettext.
>>
>> That happened sometimes with different other combinations.I deleted
>> these packages via pkg_delete and rerun the make procedure, but how
>> should a noob come to this?  I think the mports is testing against the
>> existence of dependent files in Packages- or Distfiles-directory. But it
>> would be better to test against the pkgdb-entries! Then make would not
>> to need to fetch a not needed file, then it won't waste compiling time,
>> then the installation of a port would be successfully.
>>
>>     
>
> Ports should never test against the package database.  If you were to
> install a piece of software by hand, and then installed a port that
> depends on that software; if ports tested against the package database
> then the software you installed by hand would be overwritten.
>
> Ports test against binaries or libraries in the system.  If a port is
> trying to install a dependancy that is already installed, then the
> makefile has the dependancy configured incorrectly, or the dependancy
> installed incorrectly.
>
> For example if a port had this in its makefile:
>
> RUN_DEPENDS=	aspell:${PORTSDIR}/textproc/aspell
>
> The it checks for the aspell binary in your $PATH, and if it isn't
> found then the port at  ${PORTSDIR}/textproc/aspell is built.
>
> This is the exact same semantics used in FreeBSD.  In fact, the
> implementation is unchanged from FreeBSD.  They have used it for
> several years without trouble.
>
>
>   
Ok, that makes sense. I will take an eye on the Makefiles.