#34833 closed defect (wontfix)
binary packages should not be installed if the default dependencies are not used
| Reported by: | jeremyhu (Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia) | Owned by: | jmroot (Joshua Root) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | High | Milestone: | |
| Component: | base | Version: | 2.1.1 |
| Keywords: | Cc: | ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt), nonstop.server@…, cooljeanius (Eric Gallager), mojca (Mojca Miklavec) | |
| Port: |
Description
I have installed boehmgc-devel. I then installed w3m. w3m was pulled in as a binary package from packages.macports.org. This version of w3m was built with boehmgc and is not compatible with boehmgc-devel.
base should not pull down a binary package if the default dependencies are not used.
Change History (8)
comment:1 Changed 12 years ago by ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)
| Cc: | ryandesign@… added |
|---|
comment:2 Changed 12 years ago by jeremyhu (Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia)
That is my understanding, yes.
comment:5 Changed 8 years ago by mf2k (Frank Schima)
I do not believe this is happening anymore. w3m is not getting installed for me. Can we close this as fixed?
$ sudo port install boehmgc-devel ---> Fetching distfiles for boehmgc-devel ---> Verifying checksums for boehmgc-devel ---> Extracting boehmgc-devel ---> Configuring boehmgc-devel Error: boehmgc-devel has been replaced by boehmgc; please install that instead.
$ port installed boehmgc The following ports are currently installed: boehmgc @7.6.0_0 (active)
$ port installed w3m None of the specified ports are installed.
comment:6 Changed 8 years ago by mojca (Mojca Miklavec)
| Cc: | mojca added |
|---|
comment:7 follow-up: 8 Changed 7 years ago by neverpanic (Clemens Lang)
| Resolution: | → wontfix |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → closed |
I don't think we should do this. If you allow different ports to satisfy a dependency, they should be compatible. If those are libraries, they should be binary-compatible.
If we did this, we would end up in a situation where a port would build differently (and produce different artifacts) depending on the dependencies installed on your system, rather than the port and its selected variants.
comment:8 Changed 7 years ago by ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)
Replying to neverpanic:
I don't think we should do this. If you allow different ports to satisfy a dependency, they should be compatible. If those are libraries, they should be binary-compatible.
If we did this, we would end up in a situation where a port would build differently (and produce different artifacts) depending on the dependencies installed on your system, rather than the port and its selected variants.
And that's exactly the mess we currently have with libressl; see #54744. And yes, I agree with using variants instead of implementing #34833.
This should only apply to depends_lib, right? Not to depends_fetch, depends_extract, depends_build or depends_run?