Dislike the way port conflicts are handled now
itetcu at FreeBSD.org
Sat Jan 16 23:55:23 UTC 2010
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 21:26:28 +0100
Pav Lucistnik <pav at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> Greg Larkin píše v so 16. 01. 2010 v 13:58 -0500:
> > That's exactly what I proposed. The bsd.port.mk could be patched to
> > support a new variable ("EARLY_CONFLICT_CHECK=yes" or somesuch) that
> > shifts the check-conflict target from its old position (part of the
> > install sequence) to its new position (fetch?).
> > The default behavior (no mods to /etc/make.conf) would revert to
> > the old conflict checking method. This may be something for
> > portmgr@ to chime in on, and I'm cc'ing them now. There could be
> > other reasons for this change that I'm unaware of.
> What is the particular scenario that the new conflicts handling broke
> for you? Often you really want to ignore locally installed packages
> and then it's better to override LOCALBASE to /nonex or something
> similar, instead of disabling conflict handling...
I'd be very happy if I could:
- fetch the distfiles, even if I have a conflicting port installed
- be able to use portmaster -o to switch from one port to an other one
that conflicts with it.
- be able to at least compile a port (eg. for testing) without having
to de-install the current one.
I'm all in favor of restoring the old behavior with a switch available
to turn on the new one.
IOnut - Un^d^dregistered ;) FreeBSD "user"
"Intellectual Property" is nowhere near as valuable as "Intellect"
FreeBSD committer -> itetcu at FreeBSD.org, PGP Key ID 057E9F8B493A297B
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20100116/8be583e8/signature.pgp
More information about the freebsd-questions