Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 17 Jan 2010 02:58:00 +0000
From:      RW <>
Subject:   Re: Dislike the way port conflicts are handled now
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References:  <> <> <> <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:08:30 -0600
Kirk Strauser <> wrote:

> On 01/16/2010 02:26 PM, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> > 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..
> Pav, I'm the OP, and described the problem in the first post. To
> recap, though, say I want to upgrade from the
> databases/mysql50-client port to databases/mysql51-client. Without
> taking extra steps such as using -DDISABLE_CONFLICTS or removing the
> CONFLICTS definition from the Makefile, I can't even start
> downloading the distfiles (using "make fetch") until I pkg_delete the
> old version. With the old system, I could do everything up through
> building the new port so that the time between running pkg_delete and
> "make reinstall" is minimized.

Is it so hard to type 


to, fetch and 


to build - given that this is something that's rarely needed.

When I first read this it sounded bad, but the more I think about it
the more I think the change is sensible.

If it bothers you that much why don't  you just alias 
make -DDISABLE_CONFLICTS to make-anyway.

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>