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: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100117124506.1563d9ad>