Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 19 Jan 2010 08:48:22 +0200
From:      Jonathan McKeown <j.mckeown@ru.ac.za>
To:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Dislike the way port conflicts are handled now
Message-ID:  <201001190848.22736.j.mckeown@ru.ac.za>
In-Reply-To: <d873d5be1001180748j1a69261ana598cb0efa346b9a@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <d873d5be1001180748j1a69261ana598cb0efa346b9a@mail.gmail.com>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Monday 18 January 2010 17:48:37 b. f. wrote:
> Argh! =A0Stop! I wish that people who felt the need to add to this
> thread would read the prior posts beforehand, and consider their
> comments before posting.

I don't know why you assume people didn't. I read the whole thread. I saw=20
people who had individual special requirements, but I didn't see anything=20
that suggested I was wrong in assuming the most common use case, by far, to=
=20
be downloading and building a port in order to install it.

Assuming that *is* indeed the commonest use case, this change makes life a=
=20
little more difficult for almost everyone in order to save possibly as much=
=20
as tens of minutes of wasted time for a few people.

Worse than that, the new behaviour either increases downtime (by requiring=
=20
that the conflicting port be removed before even starting to download the=20
replacement) or requires, as you pointed out, setting a risky option which =
if=20
accidentally misused, could break the whole system.

I still think it's an ill-considered change for the worse to make the new=20
behaviour the default.

Jonathan



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201001190848.22736.j.mckeown>