Dislike the way port conflicts are handled now

Chad Perrin perrin at apotheon.com
Sat Jan 16 19:09:22 UTC 2010

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 01:01:47PM -0500, 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.


    check for conflicts early, error out early if there are conflicts so
    one doesn't waste hours compiling something and checking/installing
    dependencies and so on


    check for conflicts late


    don't check for conflicts at all

Yeah, sounds about right.

Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20100116/fc771f17/attachment.pgp

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list