From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 16 23:02:30 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 4C7B4106568D; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 23:02:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from glarkin@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail1.sourcehosting.net (113901-app1.sourcehosting.net [72.32.213.11]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 250EA8FC0A; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 23:02:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from 68-189-245-235.dhcp.oxfr.ma.charter.com ([68.189.245.235] helo=cube.entropy.prv) by mail1.sourcehosting.net with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1NWHey-000Bb3-Bs; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:02:29 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (fireball.entropy.prv [192.168.1.12]) by cube.entropy.prv (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7D843A27055; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:02:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4B524584.9050909@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:02:28 -0500 From: Greg Larkin Organization: The FreeBSD Project User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pav@FreeBSD.org References: <4B520C71.9080301@FreeBSD.org> <1263673588.1541.60.camel@hood.oook.cz> In-Reply-To: <1263673588.1541.60.camel@hood.oook.cz> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 OpenPGP: id=1C940290 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) 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: glarkin@FreeBSD.org List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 23:02:30 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Pav Lucistnik wrote: > Greg Larkin p=ED=B9e v so 16. 01. 2010 v 13:58 -0500: >=20 >> 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?). >> >> The default behavior (no mods to /etc/make.conf) would revert to the o= ld >> 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. >=20 > 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 Hi Pav, I'm not the one who posted the original message to the list, but I'm participating in the conversation with some of the folks who expressed a preference for checking conflicts later in the build process. Here is the original post: http://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-questions@freebsd.org/msg227363.html I thought portmgr might have some insight into additional reasons for making the change, such as fixing a problem with pointyhat builds, etc. At the moment, I'm neutral on the change, since it hasn't caused me any grief, but I did some research for the folks who posted the original questions. What do you think of adding an entry to UPDATING to note a change like this in the build process? For instance, I wasn't aware of the LOCALBASE=3D/nonexistent idea that you mentioned, so the entry could include that and some other tips. Thank you, Greg - -- Greg Larkin http://www.FreeBSD.org/ - The Power To Serve http://www.sourcehosting.net/ - Ready. Set. Code. http://twitter.com/sourcehosting/ - Follow me, follow you -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iD8DBQFLUkWE0sRouByUApARApVWAKCmof3lBaN+R58UkPm82KjNvt9RCACeMExc uQCKc9mU4ou9qJ95fz6sv5Y=3D =3DEq2R -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----