From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 16 16:13:30 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 B1CA8106566B; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 16:13:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kirk@strauser.com) Received: from kanga.honeypot.net (kanga.honeypot.net [IPv6:2001:470:a80a:1:21f:d0ff:fe22:b8a8]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 733588FC17; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 16:13:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.honeypot.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kanga.honeypot.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A25CF42571; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:13:29 -0600 (CST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at honeypot.net Received: from kanga.honeypot.net ([127.0.0.1]) by kanga.honeypot.net (kanga.honeypot.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NJhyhK+BOvlc; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:13:27 -0600 (CST) Received: from [10.0.7.105] (wlan2-105.honeypot.net [10.0.7.105]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by kanga.honeypot.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2AAFE4256C; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:13:27 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <4B51E5A9.4060303@strauser.com> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:13:29 -0600 From: Kirk Strauser User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7pre) Gecko/20091214 Shredder/3.0.1pre MIME-Version: 1.0 To: glarkin@FreeBSD.org References: <4B509B51.3060809@strauser.com> <85E67FE7-4B01-40D0-A52E-BE8F3F083FAA@gmail.com> <4B51473F.90302@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4B51473F.90302@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 16:13:30 -0000 On 01/15/2010 10:57 PM, Greg Larkin wrote: > 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? > > Regards, > Greg > I'd love that. The new behavior isn't a bad default, but it needs an override. Wait a minute; rewind. Isn't that what "make -DDISABLE_CONFLICTS" does? -- Kirk Strauser