Conflict between netpipes-4.2 and timelimit-1.7

Peter Pentchev roam at
Tue Nov 16 17:33:32 UTC 2010

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 12:04:33AM -0500, jhell wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> The above two listed ports have a conflict with the installed binary
> '/usr/local/bin/timelimit' but do not list each-other as a conflict and
> should be adjusted to reflect the conflict with one-another.
> $ pkg_info -qW /usr/local/bin/timelimit
> pkg_info: both netpipes-4.2 and timelimit-1.7 claim to have installed
> /usr/local/bin/timelimit
> This could also be said for its manual pages as well.
> After removing the timelimit-1.7 package and then upgrading netpipes-4.2
> ===>>> Creating a backup package for old version netpipes-4.2
> tar: man/man1/timelimit.1.gz: Cannot stat: No such file or directory
> tar: bin/timelimit: Cannot stat: No such file or directory
> tar: Error exit delayed from previous errors.
> pkg_create: make_dist: tar command failed with code 256
> ===>>> Package creation failed for netpipes-4.2!
> Though the functionality provided by both timelimit commands are
> fundamentally the same, timelimit-1.7 offers quite a bit more control
> over the one that ships with netpipes-4.2 without the need to install
> files like 'faucet' that may act as a network server. Would it be
> possible to install the netpipes version of timelimit binary as
> timelimit-4.2 instead ? or maybe another name so these can coexist ?

I'm glad that you think that timelimit's functionality is better than
that of its netpipes equivalent, but if others don't share that opinion,
I could change the port so that the user may specify a program prefix
at build time.  Still, I'd prefer to leave the default prefix empty :)

> ***
> As well, timelimit-1.7 would be a great candidate for import into world
> since it is your e-std 2 clause BSD license and a 3 file compile. ;) And
> if noone else wants to maintain it in tree then ill volunteer.
> ***

Oh!  Of course, I, as the upstream author, would only be flattered if
people were to decide that timelimit is fit to enter the FreeBSD base
system :)  And certainly I would be willing to maintain it myself
in that case; still, thanks a lot for the offer, and a helping hand
or three could never be too much :)


Peter Pentchev	roam at    roam at    roam at
PGP key:
Key fingerprint	FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E  DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553
I am the thought you are now thinking.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url :

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list