CONFLICTS usage question
tmseck-lists at netcologne.de
Sat Jun 19 22:50:08 GMT 2004
* Sergey Matveychuk (sem at ciam.ru):
> Thomas-Martin Seck wrote:
> >* Oliver Eikemeier (eikemeier at fillmore-labs.com):
> >>It is feasible. You could check PKGORIGINS or do the
> >>check-already-installed test
> >>before check-conflicts, filtering out previous results. The question
> >Well, why not? If the already-installed check is done beforehand, the
> >self-conflict message does not show up and the user is not confused.
> >If (s)he forces the reinstall, the self-conflict is silently discarded
> >and the user is still not confused (at least not by the ports system).
> >I definitely think this is worth pursuing.
> Believe me, we can't move check-already-installed _before_
> check-conflicts target.
[Good explanation snipped]
Well, if it cannot be done that way, how about just filtering ls(1)'s or
pkg_info(1)'s output as I proposed in my quick'n'dirty patch?
I'd like to see the problem of incidental self-conflict get solved in
a sane way within bsd.port.mk, so that the ports people do not need to
constantly check new ports for correct conflict entries and poke at
maintainers. I agree with you that bsd.port.mk is rather fragile in
some, if not most parts and any changes need to be well tested.
More information about the freebsd-ports