cvs commit: ports/security/gnutls Makefile

[Roman Bogorodskiy]

 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?

Roman Bogorodskiy
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 305 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-ports/attachments/20050911/a757e441/attachment.bin