From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 16 19:09:22 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 636E31065679 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:09:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from perrin@apotheon.com) Received: from outbound-mail-158.bluehost.com (outbound-mail-158.bluehost.com [67.222.39.38]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 310D18FC0A for ; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 19:09:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 3162 invoked by uid 0); 16 Jan 2010 19:09:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box543.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.143) by outboundproxy5.bluehost.com with SMTP; 16 Jan 2010 19:09:21 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=apotheon.com; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Mail-Followup-To:References:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:User-Agent:X-Identified-User; b=Z0/HtLWWF4S3fzv13XFFZMmC09QSG9iu7EhiERcuOFXZpiq5lLmMuatTz6/URXZKeNJ2ej9FICrXSsMGNt8LFDj86vh9sR/2K5Kige7OtCp5JyD2oihP17ZmTvDeBmdk; Received: from c-24-8-180-234.hsd1.co.comcast.net ([24.8.180.234] helo=kukaburra.hydra) by box543.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NWE1Q-0005SX-D7 for freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 12:09:21 -0700 Received: by kukaburra.hydra (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 16 Jan 2010 12:01:20 -0700 Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 12:01:20 -0700 From: Chad Perrin To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Message-ID: <20100116190120.GA59663@guilt.hydra> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="jRHKVT23PllUwdXP" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Identified-User: {2737:box543.bluehost.com:apotheon:apotheon.org} {sentby:smtp auth 24.8.180.234 authed with ren@apotheon.org} Cc: 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 19:09:22 -0000 --jRHKVT23PllUwdXP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 01:01:47PM -0500, b. f. wrote: > >> 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 sequ= ence? > >> > >> Regards, > >> Greg > >> >=20 > >I'd love that. The new behavior isn't a bad default, but it needs an > >override. >=20 > >Wait a minute; rewind. Isn't that what "make -DDISABLE_CONFLICTS" does? >=20 > I believe that he is talking about changing _when_ the check for > conflicts is made; whereas DISABLE_CONFLICTS ignores the check, > regardless of when it is made. A late check is preferable to using > DISABLE_CONFLICTS, because with that knob you can shoot yourself in > the foot by mistakenly installing one port on top of another. Best: check for conflicts early, error out early if there are conflicts so one doesn't waste hours compiling something and checking/installing dependencies and so on Middling: check for conflicts late Worst: don't check for conflicts at all Yeah, sounds about right. --=20 Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] --jRHKVT23PllUwdXP Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAktSDP8ACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKVRwQCfUF/MoHnOryIua8Jg7sj7enyO u9wAn3V6SxFqRTgo+UBY0TdukmN9/qJC =gG49 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --jRHKVT23PllUwdXP--