Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:45:34 +0200 From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> To: Thomas-Martin Seck <tmseck-lists@netcologne.de> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports that should use CONFLICTS Message-ID: <3F86FE4E.4010308@fillmore-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <20031010182457.1651.qmail@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> References: <20031010182457.1651.qmail@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thomas-Martin Seck wrote: > [...] >>Regardless, they overwrite each other, and thus a CONFLICTS line should >>be added. > > Well, I admit that I do not quite understand which problem CONFLICTS > tries to solve. The porter's handbook is rather vague about it. In my > opinion, CONFLICTS is useful but only to point out not-obvious > incompatibilities. Using it to signal every kind of "duplicate file > installation" would make mutt CONFLICT with tin since both install > an mbox(5) document. They shouldn't, otherwise the man page disappeares when the first port is deinstalled. If your argument is that this is a file you don't care for, then it shouldn't be installed in the first place. Or you should propose a rating system for files...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3F86FE4E.4010308>