Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 17 Jan 2010 11:44:05 +0100
From:      Pav Lucistnik <>
Cc:, "b. f." <>,
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

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-2"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Greg Larkin p=ED=B9e v so 16. 01. 2010 v 18:02 -0500:

> Here is the original post:

I will agree that `portupgrade -o` is way too useful feature.
I'd vote for reverting to the old behaviour.

> I thought portmgr might have some insight into additional reasons for
> making the change, such as fixing a problem with pointyhat builds, etc.
>  At the moment, I'm neutral on the change, since it hasn't caused me any
> grief, but I did some research for the folks who posted the original
> questions.

It was done because someone thought it is a good idea and submitted a PR
about it.

Pav Lucistnik <>
I can't do that, that would make sense.

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Toto je =?UTF-8?Q?digit=C3=A1ln=C4=9B?=
	=?ISO-8859-1?Q?_podepsan=E1?= =?UTF-8?Q?_=C4=8D=C3=A1st?=

Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (FreeBSD)



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