From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 17 19:52:55 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D22ED106566B for ; Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:52:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dan@dan.emsphone.com) Received: from email1.allantgroup.com (email1.emsphone.com [199.67.51.115]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93D548FC14 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:52:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dan.emsphone.com (dan.emsphone.com [199.67.51.101]) by email1.allantgroup.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id o0HJqsBH024009 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 17 Jan 2010 13:52:54 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from dan@dan.emsphone.com) Received: from dan.emsphone.com (smmsp@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dan.emsphone.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o0HJqro3095133 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 17 Jan 2010 13:52:54 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from dan@dan.emsphone.com) Received: (from dan@localhost) by dan.emsphone.com (8.14.4/8.14.3/Submit) id o0HIrsLJ082021; Sun, 17 Jan 2010 12:53:54 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from dan) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 12:53:51 -0600 From: Dan Nelson To: Martin Wilke Message-ID: <20100117185350.GI5651@dan.emsphone.com> References: <4B520C71.9080301@FreeBSD.org> <1263673588.1541.60.camel@hood.oook.cz> <4B524584.9050909@FreeBSD.org> <1263725045.1541.66.camel@hood.oook.cz> <20100117124506.1563d9ad@miwi.homeunix.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20100117124506.1563d9ad@miwi.homeunix.com> X-OS: FreeBSD 7.2-STABLE User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.95.3 at email1.allantgroup.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (email1.allantgroup.com [199.67.51.78]); Sun, 17 Jan 2010 13:52:54 -0600 (CST) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.45 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:29:02 +0000 Cc: glarkin@freebsd.org, pav@freebsd.org, portmgr@freebsd.org, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, "b. f." Subject: Re: Dislike the way port conflicts are handled now X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:52:55 -0000 In the last episode (Jan 17), Martin Wilke said: > On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 11:44:05 +0100 > Pav Lucistnik wrote: > > Greg Larkin píse v so 16. 01. 2010 v 18:02 -0500: > > > Here is the original post: > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-questions@freebsd.org/msg227363.html > > > > I will agree that `portupgrade -o` is way too useful feature. I'd vote > > for reverting to the old behaviour. > > > > > I thought portmgr might have some insight into additional reasons for > > > making the change, such as fixing a problem with pointyhat builds, > > > etc. At the moment, I'm neutral on the change, since it hasn't caused > > > me any grief, but I did some research for the folks who posted the > > > original questions. > > > > It was done because someone thought it is a good idea and submitted a PR > > about it. > > For some ports is the conflict check too late see example here. > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-gecko/2009-December/000577.html > > I agree that we need a new pre-fetch hook in bsd.port.mk if a conflict > present is. But that need a bit work and it is on my todo list... Maybe CONFLICTS could be treated like DEPENDS, with separate BUILD and RUN checks. -- Dan Nelson dnelson@allantgroup.com