From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Jan 16 18:01:56 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 710031065670
	for <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org>;
	Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:01:56 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from bf1783@googlemail.com)
Received: from ey-out-2122.google.com (ey-out-2122.google.com [74.125.78.27])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A09C8FC15
	for <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org>;
	Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:01:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by ey-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 25so166250eya.3
	for <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org>;
	Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:01:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
	h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:date:message-id:subject
	:from:to:content-type;
	bh=j3PIT4QEzqTDMJ4Rg6SMWqHJ336ZP50iRHJ220zIfeY=;
	b=pAQtNQmgZP/YnzonXrU5d8IwVCcebncc0T3Dyy+JzXKNVv30yzMMe4aa/vvI7FNraQ
	TcHaBGjABKRrkgAOwUDYgB1wDqTqurJ65yKgoT/WbAeJkpgD4w8XBEeeRVQ0sIwf9eeW
	Y6NqA3ZD6+rr1e0Dka9BSQfG+zbV7wJQPlHP8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
	h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
	b=LIrJgywGg92Rs8MsetQLMxhrbo+zLRNXYLxcsSc8kxi5MeaPxEY0AwODvKN0xRM4zW
	ccoIUMVdzaOEFMlsA/H3w9YXYivy2RJjWp6gNXQGLqUvLDqSS7yuD9N1FFFuTYwDwDLm
	hC4sb0hFSUsx+ZR/VFHOJfrdV8ZbnKPzr85GM=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.85.210 with SMTP id u60mr1410273wee.226.1263664907609; 
	Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:01:47 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:01:47 -0500
Message-ID: <d873d5be1001161001i5d398205hea3d2ec1978ee3f@mail.gmail.com>
From: "b. f." <bf1783@googlemail.com>
To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: 
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: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:01:56 -0000

>> Since some folks like the old behavior and some folks like the new
>> behavior, what do you all think of a user-selectable make.conf option to
>> choose where the check-conflicts target appears in the port build sequence?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Greg
>>

>I'd love that. The new behavior isn't a bad default, but it needs an
>override.

>Wait a minute; rewind. Isn't that what "make -DDISABLE_CONFLICTS" does?

I believe that he is talking about changing _when_ the check for
conflicts is made; whereas DISABLE_CONFLICTS ignores the check,
regardless of when it is made.  A late check is preferable to using
DISABLE_CONFLICTS, because with that knob you can shoot yourself in
the foot by mistakenly installing one port on top of another.


b.