From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Thu Jun 13 16:41:32 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ED3815B79E9 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 16:41:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from matthew@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [96.47.72.83]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 344D88D0DC for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 16:41:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from matthew@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:151:1:c4ea:bd49:619b:6cb3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) (Authenticated sender: matthew/mail) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BFE4C18FA4 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 16:41:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from matthew@FreeBSD.org) Received: from leaf.local (unknown [88.212.184.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk) by smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D59F1A288 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 16:41:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk/D59F1A288; dkim=none; dkim-atps=neutral Subject: Re: How to best check a configuration of another port/package? To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <736af897-818e-68cd-c354-f295d03fb176@bluerosetech.com> <40631880-8ec7-03b9-5fde-2e7b15ff5c51@mouf.net> From: Matthew Seaman Message-ID: <1b6495b3-9d61-9794-50f3-c9460f51554d@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 17:41:29 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <40631880-8ec7-03b9-5fde-2e7b15ff5c51@mouf.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 344D88D0DC X-Spamd-Bar: ------ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-6.99 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.99)[-0.992,0]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 16:41:32 -0000 On 13/06/2019 17:00, Steve Wills wrote: > Hmm, flavors have to be something that can be installed in parallel, > right? How does that impact binutils? They don't /have/ to be something that can be installed in parallel. Different flavours of the same package can conflict with each other. Look at the editors/emacs port for a nice little self-contained example. The majority of flavoured packages do support parallel installs, but that's because they're mostly python modules and python allows multiple versions of itself to be installed concurrently. Cheers, Matthew