From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 27 20:20:06 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F92F1065672 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 20:20:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD9C48FC12 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 20:20:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 31169 invoked by uid 399); 27 Jun 2010 20:20:04 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.145?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 27 Jun 2010 20:20:04 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 13:20:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton To: Lev Serebryakov In-Reply-To: <381214039.20100627220400@serebryakov.spb.ru> Message-ID: References: <381214039.20100627220400@serebryakov.spb.ru> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) X-message-flag: Outlook -- Not just for spreading viruses anymore! OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Early CONFLICTS detection is POLA viloation? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 20:20:06 -0000 On Sun, 27 Jun 2010, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > Hello, Freebsd-ports. > > I understand, that this change (ports/137855, bsd.port.mk:1.632) > was made 6 months ago, but I've noticed it only now (twice in one > day!). > > Am I only person, who thinks, that this change is HUGE POLA > violation? > > PR says about "big tarball is downloaded and CONFLICTS are detected > after that," but I've have two more realistic scenarios, when early > conflict detection is VERY annoying. Thry are real-life scenarios, > occured today for me in a row. > > (1) I have `subversion' port installed, and want to `makesum' in > updated subversion-freebsd port directory (because I'm maintainer and > need to update port with new version, which have new tarball). OOPS. > I cannot even download new tarball -- confilct is detected. I agree that this is kind of a pain, but as developers we are expected to deal with a little pain to make life for the users easier. :) (One could very convincingly argue that this particular change introduced too much pain for too little benefit, but I digress.) Someone else already mentioned -DDISABLE_CONFLICTS which works for everything, including makesum. Of course, I almost always forget to add that the first time ... > (2) I want upgrade perl from 5.8.x to 5.10.x. Type command: > > #portupgrade -rfo lang/petl5.10 perl-5.8.9_3 > > Ooops, confilct is detected, upgraid failed. GRRRR! FYI, I added code in portmaster to handle this. With portupgrade you could probably do 'DISABLE_CONFLICTS=YES portupgrade ....' but don't quote me on that. hth, Doug -- Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/ Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso