Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 00:50:48 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Florian Smeets <flo@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/www/squid Makefile ports/www/squid30 Makefile ports/www/squid31 Makefile Message-ID: <20110624005048.GA12150@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <201106231511.p5NFBIaG008249@repoman.freebsd.org> References: <201106231511.p5NFBIaG008249@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 03:11:18PM +0000, Florian Smeets wrote: > flo 2011-06-23 15:11:18 UTC > > Modified files: > www/squid Makefile > www/squid30 Makefile > www/squid31 Makefile > Log: > change all squid ports from CONFLICTS to CONFLICTS_INSTALL > > PR: ports/158194 This makes me wonder about the usefulness of the idea of segregate CONFLICTS: 1) Why do we need CONFLICTS_(BUILD|INSTALL), and 2) Why do we check for CONFLICTS before the build, not before installation? Maybe I am missing some weird scenario where some port indeed cannot be built in the presence of another (we have a few cases like that, but they are usually solved by trivial patching (which is correct: marking ports as conflicting in this case would simply mask out the problem instead of solving it properly)? I also do not understand why we preventively forbid something which would not fail: every time I try to build something conflicting, I get this message about "They install files into the same place". Well, I am not installing anything yet, am I? :-) ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110624005048.GA12150>