Early CONFLICTS detection is POLA viloation?

[Doug Barton]

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010, Lev Serebryakov wrote:

> Hello, Freebsd-ports.
>
>  I understand, that this change (ports/137855, bsd.port.mk:1.632) 
> was made 6 months ago, but I've noticed it only now (twice in one 
> day!).
>
>  Am  I  only  person,  who  thinks,  that  this  change  is HUGE POLA
> violation?
>
>  PR  says about "big tarball is downloaded and CONFLICTS are detected
> after  that,"  but I've have two more realistic scenarios, when early
> conflict  detection  is  VERY annoying. Thry are real-life scenarios,
> occured today for me in a row.
>
> (1)  I  have  `subversion'  port  installed, and want to `makesum' in
> updated subversion-freebsd port directory (because I'm maintainer and
> need  to update port with new version, which have new tarball). OOPS.
> I cannot even download new tarball -- confilct is detected.

I agree that this is kind of a pain, but as developers we are expected 
to deal with a little pain to make life for the users easier. :)  (One 
could very convincingly argue that this particular change introduced too 
much pain for too little benefit, but I digress.) Someone else already 
mentioned -DDISABLE_CONFLICTS which works for everything, including 
makesum. Of course, I almost always forget to add that the first time 
...

> (2) I want upgrade perl from 5.8.x to 5.10.x. Type command:
>
> #portupgrade -rfo lang/petl5.10 perl-5.8.9_3
>
>   Ooops, confilct is detected, upgraid failed. GRRRR!

FYI, I added code in portmaster to handle this. With portupgrade you 
could probably do 'DISABLE_CONFLICTS=YES portupgrade ....' but don't 
quote me on that.


hth,

Doug

-- 

 	Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
 	a domain name makeover!    http://SupersetSolutions.com/

 	Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
 			-- Pablo Picasso