From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 10 17:58:01 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F77D16A41F; Sat, 10 Sep 2005 17:58:01 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from fileserver.fields.utoronto.ca (fileserver.fields.utoronto.ca [128.100.216.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AACA943D5F; Sat, 10 Sep 2005 17:58:00 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from fields.fields.utoronto.ca (fields.localdomain [192.168.216.11]) by fileserver.fields.utoronto.ca (8.12.8/8.12.8/Fields 6.0) with ESMTP id j8AHvx0r031889 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 10 Sep 2005 13:58:00 -0400 Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by fields.fields.utoronto.ca (8.12.8/8.12.8/Fields WS 6.0) with ESMTP id j8AHvw6P003397; Sat, 10 Sep 2005 13:57:59 -0400 Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BB1D9511D2; Sat, 10 Sep 2005 13:57:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 13:57:57 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway To: Roman Bogorodskiy Message-ID: <20050910175757.GA52565@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <200509091534.j89FY2Qi043829@repoman.freebsd.org> <20050909170934.GA42230@xor.obsecurity.org> <20050910044627.GA761@lame.novel.ru> <20050910052129.GA49500@xor.obsecurity.org> <20050910123802.GA669@lame.novel.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050910123802.GA669@lame.novel.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, Roman Bogorodskiy , Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/security/gnutls Makefile X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 17:58:01 -0000 --6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 04:38:02PM +0400, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote: > Kris wrote: >=20 > > > > > Modified files: > > > > > security/gnutls Makefile=20 > > > > > Log: > > > > > Don't CONFLICTS with gnutls-devel since it has been removed. > > > >=20 > > > > What if users still have it installed? > > >=20 > > > There were no ports which depended on gnutls-devel in ports tree. So I > > > don't think many users have it installed. And if they really have, I > > > suppose they should use security/gnutls instead. Though I can revive > > > CONFLICTS if you think it is needed. > >=20 > > I'm pretty sure there were, previously. >=20 > Even if there were, I think it's quite obvious that port which has been > removed from the ports tree should be deinstalled from user's system,=20 > isn't it? BTW, portupgrade notes when there are such kind of ports in > the system. >=20 > I think the proper solution is deinstalling obsolete port (i.e. gnutls-de= vel > in our case) from the system, but not CONFLICTing with dead ports' ghosts. > And Porters Handbook doesn't say we should CONFLICT with nonexistent port= s. >=20 > Am I missing something? The point of CONFLICTS is to prevent two ports from spamming each other with the same installed files. That's exactly what would happen if someone still has gnutls-devel installed (it was only removed a few days ago) and tries to install this one, so it makes perfect sense to me that you should keep it there. Kris --6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFDIx6lWry0BWjoQKURAvs7AJ9thlOFfRucdhk1nGAuILZv70CqlgCgjE+D RjH3VME5f2zRhPoQ/k0+DAA= =ef9U -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi--