Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 00:49:11 +0200 From: Thomas-Martin Seck <tmseck-lists@netcologne.de> To: Sergey Matveychuk <sem@ciam.ru> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CONFLICTS usage question Message-ID: <20040619224910.GA608@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> In-Reply-To: <40D49011.2010207@ciam.ru> References: <20040619114707.GC568@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> <3D4C2946-C1E9-11D8-9250-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> <20040619124636.GD568@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> <40D49011.2010207@ciam.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Sergey Matveychuk (sem@ciam.ru): > Thomas-Martin Seck wrote: > > >* Oliver Eikemeier (eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com): > [...] > >>It is feasible. You could check PKGORIGINS or do the > >>check-already-installed test > >>before check-conflicts, filtering out previous results. The question > >>remains: > >>Why? > > > > > >Well, why not? If the already-installed check is done beforehand, the > >self-conflict message does not show up and the user is not confused. > > > >If (s)he forces the reinstall, the self-conflict is silently discarded > >and the user is still not confused (at least not by the ports system). > > > >I definitely think this is worth pursuing. > > Believe me, we can't move check-already-installed _before_ > check-conflicts target. [Good explanation snipped] Well, if it cannot be done that way, how about just filtering ls(1)'s or pkg_info(1)'s output as I proposed in my quick'n'dirty patch? I'd like to see the problem of incidental self-conflict get solved in a sane way within bsd.port.mk, so that the ports people do not need to constantly check new ports for correct conflict entries and poke at maintainers. I agree with you that bsd.port.mk is rather fragile in some, if not most parts and any changes need to be well tested.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040619224910.GA608>