math/ess CONFLICTS with devel/noweb, help with CONFLICTS= needed

[Matthew Seaman]

On 08/06/2012 19:41, Christopher J. Ruwe wrote:
> From
> http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/book.html#CONFLICTS
> I gather that I should add something like
> 
> CONFLICTS=    noweb

Usually you'ld put something like:

CONFLICTS=	noweb-[0-9]*

just to avoid accidentally matching a package which happened to have the
string 'noweb' in its name.  As it is, there is only devel/noweb that
would match in the ports at the moment, but making that glob expression
more specific is a good principle.

> to the Makefile. Am I correct in my assumption on using CONFLICTS
> instead of CONFLICTS_INSTALL and am I correct on the naming of noweb?

CONFLICTS_INSTALL means you can build your package in the presence of
the conflicting package.  I'd guess that most of the conflicts in the
ports tree are actually of this type: due to file name collisions in the
installed packages.

However, plain CONFLICTS is the popular choice for Makefiles, as it
takes effect before you waste too much time building a package you can't
install.

In principle, CONFLICTS_INSTALL is frequently going to be the more
"correct" choice.  In practice, it seems to be up to the port maintainer
to choose which to specify, and most just use plain CONFLICTS.

	Cheers,

	Matthew

-- 
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.                   7 Priory Courtyard
                                                  Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey     Ramsgate
JID: matthew at infracaninophile.co.uk               Kent, CT11 9PW



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 267 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20120608/84a09450/signature.pgp