From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 17 10:44:13 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 D8C0D1065676 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 2010 10:44:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pav@FreeBSD.org) Received: from raven.customer.vol.cz (raven.customer.vol.cz [195.250.144.108]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 622B08FC12 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 2010 10:44:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.23] (r2bb217.net.upc.cz [62.245.117.217]) (authenticated bits=0) by raven.customer.vol.cz (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o0HAi57m082693; Sun, 17 Jan 2010 11:44:07 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from pav@FreeBSD.org) From: Pav Lucistnik To: glarkin@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <4B524584.9050909@FreeBSD.org> References: <4B520C71.9080301@FreeBSD.org> <1263673588.1541.60.camel@hood.oook.cz> <4B524584.9050909@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-6BJZdP2bBSRiFyFgojaZ" Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 11:44:05 +0100 Message-ID: <1263725045.1541.66.camel@hood.oook.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.2 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.67 on 195.250.144.108 X-Milter: Spamilter (Reciever: raven.customer.vol.cz; Sender-ip: 62.245.117.217; Sender-helo: [192.168.0.23]; ) Cc: portmgr@FreeBSD.org, "b. f." , freebsd-questions@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: pav@FreeBSD.org List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 10:44:13 -0000 --=-6BJZdP2bBSRiFyFgojaZ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greg Larkin p=ED=B9e 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. --=20 Pav Lucistnik I can't do that, that would make sense. --=-6BJZdP2bBSRiFyFgojaZ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Toto je =?UTF-8?Q?digit=C3=A1ln=C4=9B?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_podepsan=E1?= =?UTF-8?Q?_=C4=8D=C3=A1st?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_zpr=E1vy?= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (FreeBSD) iEYEABECAAYFAktS6fQACgkQntdYP8FOsoKkhQCfXf11N+03E8LHHJr5ns3BKy2w KQMAn3F4xgU3qqUmOIPPFBOHVUlyFOPP =5OPC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-6BJZdP2bBSRiFyFgojaZ--