Gnome port

Christopher Sean Hilton chris at
Sun Feb 5 15:55:32 PST 2006

On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 02:54:07PM -0600, Conrad Sabatier wrote:
> On 05-Feb-2006 Christopher Sean Hilton wrote:
> > Is there a reason that the gnome 2 ports don't use the conflicts
> > mechanism to avoid completely hosing an existing gnome 2 install? On
> > [snip]
> > 

Let me be more clear because I'm not trying to blame anyone here for a
mistake that I made. I am trying find out if there is a way to make it
harder for someone else to make the same mistake and perhaps get
FreeBSD adhere a little better to my vision of POLA. I have to admit
that I was pretty amazed that not only did the gimp port not use the
existing gnome2-2.10 ports on my system but that it also tried and
_succeeded_ to install the gnome2-2.12 ports over the top of them.

To stay on topic: When I look at the Makefile for the gaim port,
/usr/ports/net-im/gaim, I see that it has a line:

     CONFLICTS?=     ja-gaim-[0-9]*

When I look at the port for the japanese language gaim port,
/usr/ports/japanese/gaim, I see that it has the line:

     CONFLICTS=      gaim-[0-9]*

On my system which has the english language gaim port installed if I:

     # cd /usr/ports/japanese/gaim
     # make

The ja-gaim port builds but installation fails:

     # make install
     ===>  Installing for ja-gaim-1.5.0

     ===>  ja-gaim-1.5.0 conflicts with installed package(s):

           They install files into the same place.
           Please remove them first with pkg_delete(1).
     *** Error code 1

     Stop in /usr/ports/japanese/gaim.
     *** Error code 1

     Stop in /usr/ports/japanese/gaim.

I honestly don't understand why this mechanism cannot be applied to
keep newer versions of a port for overwritting older ones.

To be perfectly clear:

     Was this a situation that could be avoided?
     If it could have been avoided is the CONFLICTS mechanism in ports
     the right way to do it?

     If that is the case was there a good reason that this mechanism
     was not enabled?

     And, if CONFLICTS is the right way to fix it, is the reason that
     the problem hasn't been addressed that the port maintainers just
     don't have enough time?  Because if it is I'm probably willing to
     throw sometime at it so that someone else doesn't have to see the
     same problem?


Chris Hilton                                   chris-at-vindaloo-dot-com
                "All I was doing was trying to get home from work!"
                                                 -- Rosa Parks
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 479 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list