From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 16 18:59:01 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 2297A106568D; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:59:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from glarkin@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail1.sourcehosting.net (113901-app1.sourcehosting.net [72.32.213.11]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF9D18FC14; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:59:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from 68-189-245-235.dhcp.oxfr.ma.charter.com ([68.189.245.235] helo=cube.entropy.prv) by mail1.sourcehosting.net with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1NWDrK-0009lp-7c; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:58:59 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (fireball.entropy.prv [192.168.1.12]) by cube.entropy.prv (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23A2A3A24F37; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:58:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4B520C71.9080301@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:58:57 -0500 From: Greg Larkin Organization: The FreeBSD Project User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "b. f." References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 OpenPGP: id=1C940290 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -0.4 (/) Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org, portmgr@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Dislike the way port conflicts are handled now X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: glarkin@FreeBSD.org List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:59:01 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 b. f. wrote: >>> 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 >>> > >> I'd love that. The new behavior isn't a bad default, but it needs an >> override. > >> Wait a minute; rewind. Isn't that what "make -DDISABLE_CONFLICTS" does? > > I believe that he is talking about changing _when_ the check for > conflicts is made; whereas DISABLE_CONFLICTS ignores the check, > regardless of when it is made. A late check is preferable to using > DISABLE_CONFLICTS, because with that knob you can shoot yourself in > the foot by mistakenly installing one port on top of another. > > > b. That's exactly what I proposed. The bsd.port.mk could be patched to support a new variable ("EARLY_CONFLICT_CHECK=yes" or somesuch) that shifts the check-conflict target from its old position (part of the install sequence) to its new position (fetch?). The default behavior (no mods to /etc/make.conf) would revert to the old conflict checking method. This may be something for portmgr@ to chime in on, and I'm cc'ing them now. There could be other reasons for this change that I'm unaware of. References for portmgr: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=137855 - PR to change check-conflicts target position in bsd.port.mk http://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-questions@freebsd.org/msg227363.html - the thread archive Regards, Greg - -- Greg Larkin http://www.FreeBSD.org/ - The Power To Serve http://www.sourcehosting.net/ - Ready. Set. Code. http://twitter.com/sourcehosting/ - Follow me, follow you -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iD8DBQFLUgxx0sRouByUApARAqQBAJ9EYQlAe7gJpFasl3NmPlg8v4U3jQCfae1V dkSJqw520Z9DJQe0fIhGzkc= =2sdF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----