Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 17 Jan 2010 02:58:00 +0000
From:      RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com>
To:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Dislike the way port conflicts are handled now
Message-ID:  <20100117025800.4bf02054@gumby.homeunix.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B5254FE.1000907@strauser.com>
References:  <d873d5be1001161001i5d398205hea3d2ec1978ee3f@mail.gmail.com> <4B520C71.9080301@FreeBSD.org> <1263673588.1541.60.camel@hood.oook.cz> <4B5254FE.1000907@strauser.com>

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

  make -DDISABLE_CONFLICTS  fetch

to, fetch and 

  make -DDISABLE_CONFLICTS 

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: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100117025800.4bf02054>