Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:44:47 +0000 From: Robin Becker <robin@reportlab.com> To: FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>, apache@freebsd.org Subject: Re: binary package dependencies Message-ID: <aeaf45d60912210344n6e0e03c3l1ff8031f3680b3e6@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <44y6kxvf59.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> References: <4B2A2023.5050607@chamonix.reportlab.co.uk> <44y6kxvf59.fsf@lowell-desk.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2009/12/20 Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org>: .......... >> Somehow I had naively assumed that apache20 and apache22 were >> incompatible and could not simultaneously be installed. Did the binary >> package load ignore all conflicts? What's the proper way to approach >> these issues. Looking in the apache20 Makefile I see it conflicts with >> earlier apache, but how can it conflict with a later one? > > I think that it should. =C2=A0As I read it, apache22 registers a conflict > with apache20, but the reverse is not true. =C2=A0If you had installed th= em > in the other order, it would've refused to install. =C2=A0apache20 is the > default, so the official package was built depending on that. > > I think this should be entered as a bug, but I'm not quite positive... > clearly A conflict B is supposed to be a symmetric relation, but I guess in this case when I install apache22 it's the entire ports system that needs to record the conflicts. I don't think it's reasonable for an individual port to know that a future conflict may arise. -- Robin Becker
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?aeaf45d60912210344n6e0e03c3l1ff8031f3680b3e6>