From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 10 12:27:51 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57D9B16A4B3 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:27:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.netcologne.de (smtp1.netcologne.de [194.8.194.112]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 592F543FAF for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:27:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tmseck-lists@netcologne.de) Received: from laurel.tmseck.homedns.org (xdsl-213-196-216-26.netcologne.de [213.196.216.26]) by smtp1.netcologne.de (Postfix) with SMTP id 21D093A304 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:27:46 +0200 (MEST) Received: (qmail 1772 invoked by uid 1001); 10 Oct 2003 19:28:05 -0000 Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:27:43 +0200 From: Thomas-Martin Seck To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20031010192743.GA1690@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> References: <20031010182457.1651.qmail@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> <3F86FE4E.4010308@fillmore-labs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F86FE4E.4010308@fillmore-labs.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: private site in Germany X-PGP-KeyID: DF46EE05 X-PGP-Fingerprint: A38F AE66 6B11 6EB9 5D1A B67D 2444 2FE1 DF46 EE05 X-Attribution: tms Subject: Re: ports that should use CONFLICTS X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:27:51 -0000 * 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.