Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 11:48:17 +0000 From: Max Brazhnikov <makc@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Cc: "Christopher J. Ruwe" <cjr@cruwe.de> Subject: Re: math/ess CONFLICTS with devel/noweb, help with CONFLICTS= needed Message-ID: <201206091148.17668.makc@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4FD268B5.4050103@infracaninophile.co.uk> References: <20120608204143.5a1d780a@dijkstra.cruwe.de> <4FD268B5.4050103@infracaninophile.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 22:03:49 +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: > However, plain CONFLICTS is the popular choice for Makefiles, as it > takes effect before you waste too much time building a package you can't > install. > > In principle, CONFLICTS_INSTALL is frequently going to be the more > "correct" choice. In practice, it seems to be up to the port maintainer > to choose which to specify, and most just use plain CONFLICTS. CONFLICTS_INSTALL/BUILD are relatively new, that's why they are less spread than plain CONFLICTS. Max
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201206091148.17668.makc>