cvs commit: ports/security/gnutls Makefile

[Kris Kennaway]

On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 03:28:16PM +0400, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote:
>  Kris wrote:
> 
> > > Even if there were, I think it's quite obvious that port which has been
> > > removed from the ports tree should be deinstalled from user's system, 
> > > isn't it? BTW, portupgrade notes when there are such kind of ports in
> > > the system.
> > > 
> > > I think the proper solution is deinstalling obsolete port (i.e. gnutls-devel
> > > in our case) from the system, but not CONFLICTing with dead ports' ghosts.
> > > And Porters Handbook doesn't say we should CONFLICT with nonexistent ports.
> > > 
> > > Am I missing something?
> > 
> > The point of CONFLICTS is to prevent two ports from spamming each
> > other with the same installed files.  That's exactly what would happen
> > if someone still has gnutls-devel installed (it was only removed a few
> > days ago) and tries to install this one, so it makes perfect sense to
> > me that you should keep it there.
> 
> Done. But how long should it be kept?

Probably at least one release cycle..it's harmless to keep it there.

Kris


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-all/attachments/20050911/a9fc1d16/attachment.bin