Dislike the way port conflicts are handled now

[Programmer In Training]

On 1/16/2010 1:01 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
<snip>
> Best:
> 
>     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
> 
> Middling:
> 
>     check for conflicts late
> 
> Worst:
> 
>     don't check for conflicts at all
> 
> Yeah, sounds about right.
> 

That does nothing for conflict resolution, though. That's a big concern
for me because in the past, only one distribution of Linux (not having
used any of the BSD's before, cannot comment on them except for what I'm
seeing in this discussion) that I've used seems to handle not only
package dependency with ease and grace, but also conflict resolution (in
the sense that the only time I've had an issue with conflicts was when
an updated package wasn't available or an older required package was
discontinued). I like the fact that FreeBSD checks for conflicts early,
but erroring out without anything really useful is a negative for me.
Instead of erroring out, why not initiate some sort of conflict
resolution (e.g. remove and or update an old port) when the conflict is
first detected? Yes, it may very well mean increased time to install a
package, especially if compiling from source, but I find that a more
elegant solution then just erroring out and requiring yet another manual
step. Of course there could be an option to opt-out of this sort of
behavior too, for those who like the extra steps.

-- 
PIT

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 552 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20100116/6593eaf5/signature.pgp