Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 17 Jan 2010 12:45:06 +0100
From:      Martin Wilke <miwi@FreeBSD.org>
To:        pav@FreeBSD.org
Cc:        glarkin@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org, "b. f." <bf1783@googlemail.com>, portmgr@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: Dislike the way port conflicts are handled now
Message-ID:  <20100117124506.1563d9ad@miwi.homeunix.com>
In-Reply-To: <1263725045.1541.66.camel@hood.oook.cz>
References:  <d873d5be1001161001i5d398205hea3d2ec1978ee3f@mail.gmail.com> <4B520C71.9080301@FreeBSD.org> <1263673588.1541.60.camel@hood.oook.cz> <4B524584.9050909@FreeBSD.org> <1263725045.1541.66.camel@hood.oook.cz>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 11:44:05 +0100
Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org> wrote:

> Greg Larkin p=ED=B9e v so 16. 01. 2010 v 18:02 -0500:
>=20
> > Here is the original post:
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-questions@freebsd.org/msg227363.html
>=20
> I will agree that `portupgrade -o` is way too useful feature.
> I'd vote for reverting to the old behaviour.
>=20
> > 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.
>=20
> It was done because someone thought it is a good idea and submitted a
> PR about it.
>=20

Howdy,

For some ports is the conflict check too late see example here.

http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-gecko/2009-December/000577.html=
=20

I agree that we need a new pre-fetch hook in bsd.port.mk if a conflict
present is. But that need a bit work and it is on my todo list...

- Martin



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100117124506.1563d9ad>