Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 13:05:56 +0400 From: Sergey Matveychuk <sem@ciam.ru> To: Thomas-Martin Seck <tmseck-lists@netcologne.de> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CONFLICTS usage question Message-ID: <40D55374.4020708@ciam.ru> In-Reply-To: <20040619224910.GA608@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> References: <20040619114707.GC568@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> <3D4C2946-C1E9-11D8-9250-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> <20040619124636.GD568@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> <40D49011.2010207@ciam.ru> <20040619224910.GA608@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thomas-Martin Seck wrote: > Well, if it cannot be done that way, how about just filtering ls(1)'s or > pkg_info(1)'s output as I proposed in my quick'n'dirty patch? I see no harm then. Moreover, I think it's POLA compliant. A maintainer could think "port confflicts with itself, so I can set CONFLICTS=portname* safely". But it's something not critical. So, you need make a definitive patch and send-pr. If portmgr@ consider it necessary, they will commit it. -- Sem.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?40D55374.4020708>