Dislike the way port conflicts are handled now

[Dan Nelson]

In the last episode (Jan 17), Martin Wilke said:
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 11:44:05 +0100
> Pav Lucistnik <pav at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> > Greg Larkin píse v so 16. 01. 2010 v 18:02 -0500:
> > > Here is the original post:
> > > http://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-questions@freebsd.org/msg227363.html
> > 
> > I will agree that `portupgrade -o` is way too useful feature.  I'd vote
> > for reverting to the old behaviour.
> > 
> > > I thought portmgr might have some insight into additional reasons for
> > > making the change, such as fixing a problem with pointyhat builds,
> > > etc.  At the moment, I'm neutral on the change, since it hasn't caused
> > > me any grief, but I did some research for the folks who posted the
> > > original questions.
> > 
> > It was done because someone thought it is a good idea and submitted a PR
> > about it.
> 
> For some ports is the conflict check too late see example here.
> 
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-gecko/2009-December/000577.html 
> 
> I agree that we need a new pre-fetch hook in bsd.port.mk if a conflict
> present is.  But that need a bit work and it is on my todo list...

Maybe CONFLICTS could be treated like DEPENDS, with separate BUILD and RUN
checks.

-- 
	Dan Nelson
	dnelson at allantgroup.com