From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 16 20:53:39 2010 Return-Path: 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 619DC1065692 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 20:53:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pav@FreeBSD.org) Received: from raven.customer.vol.cz (raven.customer.vol.cz [195.250.144.108]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9C668FC18 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 20:53:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.23] (r2bb217.net.upc.cz [62.245.117.217]) (authenticated bits=0) by raven.customer.vol.cz (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o0GKQSdZ014197; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 21:26:30 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from pav@FreeBSD.org) From: Pav Lucistnik To: glarkin@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <4B520C71.9080301@FreeBSD.org> References: <4B520C71.9080301@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-CXir7+m+vhIcvtydu7NC" Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 21:26:28 +0100 Message-ID: <1263673588.1541.60.camel@hood.oook.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.2 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.67 on 195.250.144.108 X-Milter: Spamilter (Reciever: raven.customer.vol.cz; Sender-ip: 62.245.117.217; Sender-helo: [192.168.0.23]; ) Cc: portmgr@FreeBSD.org, "b. f." , 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 Reply-To: pav@FreeBSD.org List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 20:53:39 -0000 --=-CXir7+m+vhIcvtydu7NC 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 bsd.port.mk 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?). >=20 > 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... --=20 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 --=-CXir7+m+vhIcvtydu7NC 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?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_zpr=E1vy?= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (FreeBSD) iEYEABECAAYFAktSIPQACgkQntdYP8FOsoLFWgCgzvYMrr1Z6/P6pux7BOTrbpTG ulQAoMdvZCJnACSAO+Ip/sNKpQ1MgRIU =hDRg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-CXir7+m+vhIcvtydu7NC--