From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 16 23:13:59 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 E4D7E106566B; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 23:13:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bf1783@googlemail.com) Received: from mail-ew0-f226.google.com (mail-ew0-f226.google.com [209.85.219.226]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F23B98FC14; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 23:13:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy26 with SMTP id 26so2152224ewy.3 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:13:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=+/MHg/6Gj3C0l9ETVPZyfB28iGQFJKSdJzEBUwSZF28=; b=YhMW2cGypXdx+eGH5Ej5c4EeUdOC/v+frj5r7oO6uUFZT3+GdWnwdwAEZYXZF5smGJ 5tWABvZlOWKnl46OpPp3IxEEslM1Z0uifWJKnNe4Y+E6zoysZl1qHYChbUn7JB9UJQfK kxeG2RosejCI4aR6A+DlNM4Z8d2lJFBq8xQqw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=ZWzWoqFEhCrVOOVT9bA09o5/vKtRl8HQ/6WvDt+os/zoojrEf73e8pFh/sNkp6UX+M T5YaD08EaOyYbHDrIexLaqlBcaLOgCe3FETmxigPP3w6QOhHfyqoGTaHWX83nYC9+yC6 9VyXUX0aYC1R23kPYT/78uAW+wAOYgk9iUY/k= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.88.139 with SMTP id a11mr1585762wef.50.1263683626401; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:13:46 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1263673588.1541.60.camel@hood.oook.cz> References: <4B520C71.9080301@FreeBSD.org> <1263673588.1541.60.camel@hood.oook.cz> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:13:46 -0500 Message-ID: From: "b. f." To: pav@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: glarkin@freebsd.org, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, portmgr@freebsd.org 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 23:14:00 -0000 On 1/16/10, Pav Lucistnik wrote: > Greg Larkin p=ED=B9e v so 16. 01. 2010 v 13:58 -0500: > >> 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 old >> 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. > > 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... Some people want to be able to fetch and build ports that conflict with installed ports, without going to the trouble of (1) re-installing all of the build dependencies in an alternate LOCALBASE; or (2) first de-installing, and then afterwards reinstalling the conflicting ports. And they want to do this without disabling the conflict check, so that they don't mistakenly corrupt an installed port. b.