Conflicting binary in dependency

[Aaron Madlon-Kay]

> Whatever you choose, anytime you move a file from being provided by one port to being provided by another port, don't forget to use the deactivate hack in the new port:
> 
> https://trac.macports.org/wiki/PortfileRecipes#deactivatehack

Thanks for pointing this out.

I added this, but I wonder if it’s necessary in this case:
1. I need to bump the revision of tcl to remove sqlite3_analyzer
2. At the same time, tcl becomes a dependency to the new revision of sqlite3
3. When upgrading sqlite3, because it is a dependency tcl appears to be upgraded first, resolving the conflict

So it seems like the deactivate hack code will never be run.

Thanks,
Aaron


> On Jan 13, 2017, at 8:52, Ryan Schmidt <ryandesign at macports.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Jan 12, 2017, at 01:58, Aaron Madlon-Kay wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all. I was hoping to get some advice:
>> 
>> I want to make the sqlite3-tools package available via MacPorts (binaries available at https://sqlite.org/download.html); this package contains three binaries: sqlite3 CLI shell, sqldiff, and sqlite3_analyzer.
>> 
>> Problem:
>> 
>> sqlite3_analyzer requires TCL; it turns out the `tcl` port actually includes sqlite3_analyzer built from its own bundled copy of sqlite3, but it is an older version. This older version is installed to ${prefix}/bin, so it conflicts with any newer version we might try to install.
>> 
>> Questions:
>> 
>> - Is it common knowledge that sqlite3_analyzer is available as part of TCL? Its inclusion there seems coincidental, perhaps just due to the fact that it's implemented in TCL?
>>  - If no, can we remove it from the `tcl` port?
>> 
> 
> I was not aware it was in the tcl port. Sounds like a good idea to remove it from there.
> 
>> - If sqlite3_analyzer can't be removed from the `tcl` port, should the newer binary have a different name or be put in a different path? Is there a standard scheme for disambiguation like this?
>> 
>> - If no to all above, sqlite3_analyzer can be built against the system-provided TCL framework, and the port can be marked as incompatible with the `tcl` port. Is that acceptable? (I would think not)
>> 
>> Aside:
>> 
>> I've got this working in two forms: a +tools variant on the `sqlite3` port, and a new port called `sqlite3-tools`; I'm feeling like a the +tools variant might be the better way to go, but feedback on this would be appreciated as well.
> 
> Is there a particular reason why it should be a variant, as opposed to just always building and installing the tools in the sqlite3 port?
> 
> Whatever you choose, anytime you move a file from being provided by one port to being provided by another port, don't forget to use the deactivate hack in the new port:
> 
> https://trac.macports.org/wiki/PortfileRecipes#deactivatehack