Dislike the way port conflicts are handled now

Greg Larkin glarkin at FreeBSD.org
Sat Jan 16 18:59:01 UTC 2010

Hash: SHA1

b. f. wrote:
>>> Since some folks like the old behavior and some folks like the new
>>> behavior, what do you all think of a user-selectable make.conf option to
>>> choose where the check-conflicts target appears in the port build sequence?
>>> Regards,
>>> Greg
>> I'd love that. The new behavior isn't a bad default, but it needs an
>> override.
>> Wait a minute; rewind. Isn't that what "make -DDISABLE_CONFLICTS" does?
> I believe that he is talking about changing _when_ the check for
> conflicts is made; whereas DISABLE_CONFLICTS ignores the check,
> regardless of when it is made.  A late check is preferable to using
> DISABLE_CONFLICTS, because with that knob you can shoot yourself in
> the foot by mistakenly installing one port on top of another.
> b.

That's exactly what I proposed.  The bsd.port.mk could be patched to
support a new variable ("EARLY_CONFLICT_CHECK=yes" or somesuch) that
shifts the check-conflict target from its old position (part of the
install sequence) to its new position (fetch?).

The default behavior (no mods to /etc/make.conf) would revert to the old
conflict checking method.  This may be something for portmgr@ to chime
in on, and I'm cc'ing them now.  There could be other reasons for this
change that I'm unaware of.

References for portmgr:

	- PR to change check-conflicts target position in bsd.port.mk

	- the thread archive

- --
Greg Larkin

http://www.FreeBSD.org/           - The Power To Serve
http://www.sourcehosting.net/     - Ready. Set. Code.
http://twitter.com/sourcehosting/ - Follow me, follow you
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/


More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list