Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 11:44:05 +0100 From: Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org> To: glarkin@FreeBSD.org Cc: portmgr@FreeBSD.org, "b. f." <bf1783@googlemail.com>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Dislike the way port conflicts are handled now Message-ID: <1263725045.1541.66.camel@hood.oook.cz> In-Reply-To: <4B524584.9050909@FreeBSD.org> References: <d873d5be1001161001i5d398205hea3d2ec1978ee3f@mail.gmail.com> <4B520C71.9080301@FreeBSD.org> <1263673588.1541.60.camel@hood.oook.cz> <4B524584.9050909@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-6BJZdP2bBSRiFyFgojaZ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greg Larkin p=ED=B9e v so 16. 01. 2010 v 18:02 -0500: > Here is the original post: > http://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-questions@freebsd.org/msg227363.html I will agree that `portupgrade -o` is way too useful feature. I'd vote for reverting to the old behaviour. > I thought portmgr might have some insight into additional reasons for > making the change, such as fixing a problem with pointyhat builds, etc. > At the moment, I'm neutral on the change, since it hasn't caused me any > grief, but I did some research for the folks who posted the original > questions. It was done because someone thought it is a good idea and submitted a PR about it. --=20 Pav Lucistnik <pav@oook.cz> <pav@FreeBSD.org> I can't do that, that would make sense. --=-6BJZdP2bBSRiFyFgojaZ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Toto je =?UTF-8?Q?digit=C3=A1ln=C4=9B?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_podepsan=E1?= =?UTF-8?Q?_=C4=8D=C3=A1st?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_zpr=E1vy?= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (FreeBSD) iEYEABECAAYFAktS6fQACgkQntdYP8FOsoKkhQCfXf11N+03E8LHHJr5ns3BKy2w KQMAn3F4xgU3qqUmOIPPFBOHVUlyFOPP =5OPC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-6BJZdP2bBSRiFyFgojaZ--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1263725045.1541.66.camel>