Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 10 Sep 2005 13:57:57 -0400
From:      Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
To:        Roman Bogorodskiy <bogorodskiy@gmail.com>
Cc:        cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, Roman Bogorodskiy <novel@FreeBSD.org>, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: ports/security/gnutls Makefile
Message-ID:  <20050910175757.GA52565@xor.obsecurity.org>
In-Reply-To: <20050910123802.GA669@lame.novel.ru>
References:  <200509091534.j89FY2Qi043829@repoman.freebsd.org> <20050909170934.GA42230@xor.obsecurity.org> <20050910044627.GA761@lame.novel.ru> <20050910052129.GA49500@xor.obsecurity.org> <20050910123802.GA669@lame.novel.ru>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 04:38:02PM +0400, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote:
>  Kris wrote:
>=20
> > > > >   Modified files:
> > > > >     security/gnutls      Makefile=20
> > > > >   Log:
> > > > >   Don't CONFLICTS with gnutls-devel since it has been removed.
> > > >=20
> > > > What if users still have it installed?
> > >=20
> > > There were no ports which depended on gnutls-devel in ports tree. So I
> > > don't think many users have it installed. And if they really have, I
> > > suppose they should use security/gnutls instead. Though I can revive
> > > CONFLICTS if you think it is needed.
> >=20
> > I'm pretty sure there were, previously.
>=20
> Even if there were, I think it's quite obvious that port which has been
> removed from the ports tree should be deinstalled from user's system,=20
> isn't it? BTW, portupgrade notes when there are such kind of ports in
> the system.
>=20
> I think the proper solution is deinstalling obsolete port (i.e. gnutls-de=
vel
> in our case) from the system, but not CONFLICTing with dead ports' ghosts.
> And Porters Handbook doesn't say we should CONFLICT with nonexistent port=
s.
>=20
> Am I missing something?

The point of CONFLICTS is to prevent two ports from spamming each
other with the same installed files.  That's exactly what would happen
if someone still has gnutls-devel installed (it was only removed a few
days ago) and tries to install this one, so it makes perfect sense to
me that you should keep it there.

Kris



--6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFDIx6lWry0BWjoQKURAvs7AJ9thlOFfRucdhk1nGAuILZv70CqlgCgjE+D
RjH3VME5f2zRhPoQ/k0+DAA=
=ef9U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050910175757.GA52565>