Dislike the way port conflicts are handled now

[Jonathan McKeown]

On Sunday 17 January 2010 10:24:43 Matthew Seaman wrote:
> Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> > I'd be very happy if I could:
> > - fetch the distfiles, even if I have a conflicting port installed
> > - be able to use portmaster -o to switch from one port to an other one
> >   that conflicts with it.
> > - be able to at least compile a port (eg. for testing) without having
> >   to de-install the current one.
> >
> > I'm all in favor of restoring the old behavior with a switch available
> > to turn on the new one.
>
> +1
>
> Although a big fat warning message at fetch or build phase when operating
> on a port with conflicts wouldn't go amiss.

I'd agree with this too.

The idea of the change seems to be to protect people from wasting time 
downloading and building something which they can't install without resolving 
a conflict.

How exactly was that wasted time? Surely you don't download and build a port 
you're not going to install?

What the change actually does is penalise people who want to download and 
build regardless of conflicts, to reduce the time between uninstalling the 
conflicting port and being able to install the replacement.

This seems to me to be a very badly thought-out change which should be 
reverted.

Jonathan