Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 16 Jan 2010 21:26:28 +0100
From:      Pav Lucistnik <>
Cc:, "b. f." <>,
Subject:   Re: Dislike the way port conflicts are handled now
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References:  <> <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-2"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Greg Larkin p=ED=B9e v so 16. 01. 2010 v 13:58 -0500:

> That's exactly what I proposed.  The could be patched to
> support a new variable ("EARLY_CONFLICT_CHECK=3Dyes" or somesuch) that
> shifts the check-conflict target from its old position (part of the
> install sequence) to its new position (fetch?).
> The default behavior (no mods to /etc/make.conf) would revert to the old
> conflict checking method.  This may be something for portmgr@ to chime
> in on, and I'm cc'ing them now.  There could be other reasons for this
> change that I'm unaware of.

What is the particular scenario that the new conflicts handling broke
for you? Often you really want to ignore locally installed packages and
then it's better to override LOCALBASE to /nonex or something similar,
instead of disabling conflict handling...

Pav Lucistnik <>
It's the classic Microsoft security-bulletin formula: "The vulnerability
is important (never dangerous); you have nothing to fear and no reason
to regret trusting us; we have no intention of apologizing for it or
even explaining it adequately; now go get your patch, shut up, and be
grateful nothing bad has happened. -- The Register

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?=

Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (FreeBSD)



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>