Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 13:43:51 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: Lev Serebryakov <lev@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Early CONFLICTS detection is POLA viloation? Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1006271340500.63803@wonkity.com> In-Reply-To: <381214039.20100627220400@serebryakov.spb.ru> References: <381214039.20100627220400@serebryakov.spb.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > Hello, Freebsd-ports. > > I understand, that this change (ports/137855, bsd.port.mk:1.632) was made 6 months ago, but I've > noticed it only now (twice in one day!). > > Am I only person, who thinks, that this change is HUGE POLA > violation? > > PR says about "big tarball is downloaded and CONFLICTS are detected > after that," but I've have two more realistic scenarios, when early > conflict detection is VERY annoying. Thry are real-life scenarios, > occured today for me in a row. > > (1) I have `subversion' port installed, and want to `makesum' in > updated subversion-freebsd port directory (because I'm maintainer and > need to update port with new version, which have new tarball). OOPS. > I cannot even download new tarball -- confilct is detected. > > (2) I want upgrade perl from 5.8.x to 5.10.x. Type command: > > #portupgrade -rfo lang/petl5.10 perl-5.8.9_3 > > Ooops, confilct is detected, upgraid failed. GRRRR! > > > Maybe, early conflict detection should only print WARNING, and only > install target should be blocked by it, as everybody used for MANY > years? It's been mentioned before: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/137855
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1006271340500.63803>