ports that should use CONFLICTS

Oliver Eikemeier eikemeier at fillmore-labs.com
Fri Oct 10 11:42:00 PDT 2003

Thomas-Martin Seck wrote:

> * Will Andrews <will at csociety.org> [gmane.os.freebsd.devel.ports]:
>>On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 01:28:08PM -0400, Adam Weinberger wrote:
>>>>>(10.10.2003 @ 1112 PST): Thomas-Martin Seck said, in 1.9K: <<
>>>>It seems that pkg_add should be tought to ignore unknown declarations in
>>>>package files.
>>>What does that mean?
>>I suspect he means it should be taught to ignore things like
>>"@conflicts" if it does not recognize it.
> Right.
>>Noble idea, but we can't apply such a change retroactively.  The
>>best way to solve pkg_info conflicts is to force a newer version
>>on them through sysutils/pkg_install.  Unfortunately that hasn't
>>been implemented yet, although it is trivial to do.
> I often wish that portmgr@ would deploy the kind of changes to the ports
> system that imply that changes to the base system's pkg_*-tools have to
> be made, _after_ these changes have propagated into the base system. For
> instance: Teach pkg_* how to deal with @comment, MFC it into -STABLE,
> wait for the next release and _then_ go ahead and implement the change
> in the ports system. Yes, I know it's hard to hold one's breath for
> probably six months or longer... The other way would be to make the
> package handling tools in itself be part of the ports system. This will
> of course create a "package bootstrapping" problem - how to install the
> package manager package?

We are working on it. sysutils/pkg_install is a first (small) step...

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list