Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:22:00 +0200 From: Manolis Kiagias <sonicy@otenet.gr> To: glarkin@freebsd.org Cc: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Dislike the way port conflicts are handled now Message-ID: <4B517728.4020709@otenet.gr> In-Reply-To: <4B51473F.90302@FreeBSD.org> References: <4B509B51.3060809@strauser.com> <85E67FE7-4B01-40D0-A52E-BE8F3F083FAA@gmail.com> <4B51473F.90302@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 16/01/2010 6:57 π.μ., Greg Larkin wrote: > Craig Whipp wrote: > > > On Jan 15, 2010, at 9:44 AM, Kirk Strauser wrote: > > >> Until recently, it seems like port dependencies were handled at > >> installation time. Lately, they're handled any time I try to do > >> anything with a port. I absolutely detest the new behavior. Example > >> cases: > >> > >> OLD WAY: > >> > >> $ cd /usr/ports/something/foo22 > >> $ make > >> $ pkg_delete foo21-2.1 > >> $ make install > >> > >> NEW WAY > >> > >> $ cd /usr/ports/something/foo22 > >> $ make > >> ===> foo22 conflicts with installed package(s): foo21-2.1 > >> $ make fetch > >> ===> foo22 conflicts with installed package(s): foo21-2.1 > >> $ curse --type=copious > >> $ pkg_delete foo21-2.1 > >> $ make install > >> > >> This isn't just a hypothetical pain in the butt. An example was being > >> unable to build databases/mysql51-client because > >> mysql-client-5.0.something was installed. I understand not being able > >> to *install* it, but to be prevented from *building* it? In most > >> circumstances, I want to be able to delete the old package and install > >> the new one with minimal downtime. As another example, can you imagine > >> not being able to even run "make fetch" on something huge like > >> OpenOffice until you uninstalled the old version? > >> > >> In the mean time, I've been editing the port's Makefile to remove the > >> CONFLICTS line long enough to finish building. That's not very helpful > >> for those ports that don't actually build until you run "make > >> install", but at least I can get the distfile download out of the way. > >> -- > >> > >> Kirk Strauser > >> > > > I agree. I've found that this can interfere with portmaster's "-o" > > option, used to replace an installed port with one of a different > > origin. In my case, databases/mysql41-server with > > databases/mysql55-server. > > > - Craig > > This change was based on a recent PR > (http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=137855) and made it into the > tree a couple of weeks ago: > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk.diff?r1=1.631;r2=1.632 > > Since some folks like the old behavior and some folks like the new > behavior, what do you all think of a user-selectable make.conf option to > choose where the check-conflicts target appears in the port build > sequence? > > Regards, > Greg While I build most of my personal packages using ports-mgmt/tinderbox, this option would be very useful. I routinely run make fetch on remote machines to retrieve large distfiles, and wouldn't want the installed dependencies to interfere with that.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4B517728.4020709>