ports that should use CONFLICTS

[Thomas-Martin Seck]

* Oliver Eikemeier (eikemeier at fillmore-labs.com):

> Thomas-Martin Seck wrote:
> 
> >[...]
> >>Regardless, they overwrite each other, and thus a CONFLICTS line should
> >>be added.
> >
> >Well, I admit that I do not quite understand which problem CONFLICTS
> >tries to solve. The porter's handbook is rather vague about it. In my
> >opinion, CONFLICTS is useful but only to point out not-obvious
> >incompatibilities. Using it to signal every kind of "duplicate file
> >installation" would make mutt CONFLICT with tin since both install
> >an mbox(5) document.
> 
> They shouldn't, otherwise the man page disappeares when the first port
> is deinstalled.

At least when portupgrade is used, since it uses pkg_delete -f.

>                If your argument is that this is a file you don't care
> for, then it shouldn't be installed in the first place. Or you should
> propose a rating system for files...

No, I am just wondering which problem CONFLICT should solve. No port
should overwrite another port's files but this is a problem that has to
be solved before the port is committed, maybe by implementing a
mechanism to check +CONTENTS against a DB of all known packages.
Preventing the stupidest possible admin from installing five localized
versions of the same port over another is a problem the ports collection
should not even try to solve. I believe that CONFLICTS can be useful,
but not for the kinds of problems I already mentioned.