Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:13:46 -0500 From: "b. f." <bf1783@googlemail.com> To: pav@freebsd.org Cc: glarkin@freebsd.org, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, portmgr@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Dislike the way port conflicts are handled now Message-ID: <d873d5be1001161513l71ec7d30gf16f0a775038b314@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1263673588.1541.60.camel@hood.oook.cz> References: <d873d5be1001161001i5d398205hea3d2ec1978ee3f@mail.gmail.com> <4B520C71.9080301@FreeBSD.org> <1263673588.1541.60.camel@hood.oook.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1/16/10, Pav Lucistnik <pav@freebsd.org> wrote:
> Greg Larkin p=ED=B9e v so 16. 01. 2010 v 13:58 -0500:
>
>> That's exactly what I proposed. The bsd.port.mk could be patched to
>> support a new variable ("EARLY_CONFLICT_CHECK=3Dyes" 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.
>
> What is the particular scenario that the new conflicts handling broke
> for you? Often you really want to ignore locally installed packages and
> then it's better to override LOCALBASE to /nonex or something similar,
> instead of disabling conflict handling...
Some people want to be able to fetch and build ports that conflict
with installed ports, without going to the trouble of (1)
re-installing all of the build dependencies in an alternate LOCALBASE;
or (2) first de-installing, and then afterwards reinstalling the
conflicting ports. And they want to do this without disabling the
conflict check, so that they don't mistakenly corrupt an installed
port.
b.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d873d5be1001161513l71ec7d30gf16f0a775038b314>