From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Jan 17 16:59:30 2010
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 F1727106566B;
	Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:59:30 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com)
Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DBD38FC12;
	Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:59:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by wonkity.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o0HGxT6e059196;
	Sun, 17 Jan 2010 09:59:29 -0700 (MST)
	(envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com)
Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost)
	by wonkity.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) with ESMTP id o0HGxTex059193;
	Sun, 17 Jan 2010 09:59:29 -0700 (MST)
	(envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com)
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 09:59:29 -0700 (MST)
From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com>
To: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <4B52C94B.10809@infracaninophile.co.uk>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1001170949230.58984@wonkity.com>
References: <d873d5be1001161001i5d398205hea3d2ec1978ee3f@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B520C71.9080301@FreeBSD.org>
	<1263673588.1541.60.camel@hood.oook.cz>
	<20100117013722.1893895c@it.buh.tecnik93.com>
	<4B52C94B.10809@infracaninophile.co.uk>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3
	(wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Sun, 17 Jan 2010 09:59:29 -0700 (MST)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:28:50 +0000
Cc: "b. f." <bf1783@googlemail.com>, glarkin@freebsd.org, pav@freebsd.org,
	portmgr@freebsd.org, Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@freebsd.org>,
	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
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:59:31 -0000

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010, Matthew Seaman wrote:

> Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
>
>> I'd be very happy if I could:
>> - fetch the distfiles, even if I have a conflicting port installed
>> - be able to use portmaster -o to switch from one port to an other one
>>   that conflicts with it.
>> - be able to at least compile a port (eg. for testing) without having
>>   to de-install the current one.
>> 
>> I'm all in favor of restoring the old behavior with a switch available
>> to turn on the new one.
>
> +1
>
> Although a big fat warning message at fetch or build phase when operating on
> a port with conflicts wouldn't go amiss.

Agreed.  A warning would give time to interrupt a big distfile fetch or 
build without taking that option away by default, or encouraging 
disabling conflict checks altogether.

-Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota USA