Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:27:43 +0200 From: Thomas-Martin Seck <tmseck-lists@netcologne.de> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports that should use CONFLICTS Message-ID: <20031010192743.GA1690@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> In-Reply-To: <3F86FE4E.4010308@fillmore-labs.com> References: <20031010182457.1651.qmail@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> <3F86FE4E.4010308@fillmore-labs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Oliver Eikemeier (eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com): > 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. At least when portupgrade is used, since it uses pkg_delete -f. > 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... No, I am just wondering which problem CONFLICT should solve. No port should overwrite another port's files but this is a problem that has to be solved before the port is committed, maybe by implementing a mechanism to check +CONTENTS against a DB of all known packages. Preventing the stupidest possible admin from installing five localized versions of the same port over another is a problem the ports collection should not even try to solve. I believe that CONFLICTS can be useful, but not for the kinds of problems I already mentioned.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031010192743.GA1690>