From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 16 10:38:34 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08C401065670; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:38:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mail25@bzerk.org) Received: from ei.bzerk.org (tunnel490.ipv6.xs4all.nl [IPv6:2001:888:10:1ea::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83B158FC0A; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:38:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ei.bzerk.org (BOFH@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ei.bzerk.org (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id o0GAa9N4043523; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:36:09 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from mail25@bzerk.org) Received: (from bulk@localhost) by ei.bzerk.org (8.14.3/8.14.2/Submit) id o0GAa8BR043522; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:36:08 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from mail25@bzerk.org) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:36:08 +0100 From: Ruben de Groot To: Greg Larkin Message-ID: <20100116103608.GA43450@ei.bzerk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ruben de Groot , Greg Larkin , Craig Whipp , FreeBSD Questions References: <4B509B51.3060809@strauser.com> <85E67FE7-4B01-40D0-A52E-BE8F3F083FAA@gmail.com> <4B51473F.90302@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B51473F.90302@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on ei.bzerk.org X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0.1 (ei.bzerk.org [127.0.0.1]); Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:38:32 +0100 (CET) Cc: Craig Whipp , FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: Dislike the way port conflicts are handled now X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:38:34 -0000 On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:57:35PM -0500, Greg Larkin typed: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Craig Whipp wrote: > > > > On Jan 15, 2010, at 9:44 AM, Kirk Strauser wrote: > > > >> Until recently, it seems like port dependencies were handled at > >> installation time. Lately, they're handled any time I try to do > >> anything with a port. I absolutely detest the new behavior. Example > >> cases: > >> > >> OLD WAY: > >> > >> $ cd /usr/ports/something/foo22 > >> $ make > >> $ pkg_delete foo21-2.1 > >> $ make install > >> > >> NEW WAY > >> > >> $ cd /usr/ports/something/foo22 > >> $ make > >> ===> foo22 conflicts with installed package(s): foo21-2.1 > >> $ make fetch > >> ===> foo22 conflicts with installed package(s): foo21-2.1 > >> $ curse --type=copious > >> $ pkg_delete foo21-2.1 > >> $ make install > >> > >> This isn't just a hypothetical pain in the butt. An example was being > >> unable to build databases/mysql51-client because > >> mysql-client-5.0.something was installed. I understand not being able > >> to *install* it, but to be prevented from *building* it? In most > >> circumstances, I want to be able to delete the old package and install > >> the new one with minimal downtime. As another example, can you imagine > >> not being able to even run "make fetch" on something huge like > >> OpenOffice until you uninstalled the old version? > >> > >> In the mean time, I've been editing the port's Makefile to remove the > >> CONFLICTS line long enough to finish building. That's not very helpful > >> for those ports that don't actually build until you run "make > >> install", but at least I can get the distfile download out of the way. > >> -- > >> > >> Kirk Strauser > >> > > > > I agree. I've found that this can interfere with portmaster's "-o" > > option, used to replace an installed port with one of a different > > origin. In my case, databases/mysql41-server with > > databases/mysql55-server. > > > > - Craig > > This change was based on a recent PR > (http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=137855) and made it into the > tree a couple of weeks ago: > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk.diff?r1=1.631;r2=1.632 > > Since some folks like the old behavior and some folks like the new > behavior, what do you all think of a user-selectable make.conf option to > choose where the check-conflicts target appears in the port build sequence? The fetch and build targets do NOT create any conflicts. I think this "solution" was totally wrong and the commit should be reverted. Ruben