Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:02:28 -0500 From: Greg Larkin <glarkin@FreeBSD.org> To: pav@FreeBSD.org Cc: portmgr@FreeBSD.org, "b. f." <bf1783@googlemail.com>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Dislike the way port conflicts are handled now Message-ID: <4B524584.9050909@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <1263673588.1541.60.camel@hood.oook.cz> References: <d873d5be1001161001i5d398205hea3d2ec1978ee3f@mail.gmail.com> <4B520C71.9080301@FreeBSD.org> <1263673588.1541.60.camel@hood.oook.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> Greg Larkin p=ED=B9e v so 16. 01. 2010 v 13:58 -0500:
>=20
>> That's exactly what I proposed. The bsd.port.mk could be patched to
>> support a new variable ("EARLY_CONFLICT_CHECK=3Dyes" or somesuch) that
>> shifts the check-conflict target from its old position (part of the
>> install sequence) to its new position (fetch?).
>>
>> The default behavior (no mods to /etc/make.conf) would revert to the o=
ld
>> conflict checking method. This may be something for portmgr@ to chime
>> in on, and I'm cc'ing them now. There could be other reasons for this
>> change that I'm unaware of.
>=20
> What is the particular scenario that the new conflicts handling broke
> for you? Often you really want to ignore locally installed packages and
> then it's better to override LOCALBASE to /nonex or something similar,
> instead of disabling conflict handling...
>=20
Hi Pav,
I'm not the one who posted the original message to the list, but I'm
participating in the conversation with some of the folks who expressed a
preference for checking conflicts later in the build process.
Here is the original post:
http://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-questions@freebsd.org/msg227363.html
I thought portmgr might have some insight into additional reasons for
making the change, such as fixing a problem with pointyhat builds, etc.
At the moment, I'm neutral on the change, since it hasn't caused me any
grief, but I did some research for the folks who posted the original
questions.
What do you think of adding an entry to UPDATING to note a change like
this in the build process? For instance, I wasn't aware of the
LOCALBASE=3D/nonexistent idea that you mentioned, so the entry could
include that and some other tips.
Thank you,
Greg
- --
Greg Larkin
http://www.FreeBSD.org/ - The Power To Serve
http://www.sourcehosting.net/ - Ready. Set. Code.
http://twitter.com/sourcehosting/ - Follow me, follow you
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iD8DBQFLUkWE0sRouByUApARApVWAKCmof3lBaN+R58UkPm82KjNvt9RCACeMExc
uQCKc9mU4ou9qJ95fz6sv5Y=3D
=3DEq2R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4B524584.9050909>