From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Jun  9 11:46:29 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB19D1065674
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Sat,  9 Jun 2012 11:46:29 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from makc@freebsd.org)
Received: from mail.issp.ac.ru (mail.issp.ac.ru [77.236.34.3])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E48BD8FC08
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Sat,  9 Jun 2012 11:46:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from dev016-108.eduroam.manchester.ac.uk [194.66.16.108:21206]
	(HELO/EHLO mercury.ph.man.ac.uk, authenticated with LOGIN)
	by mail.issp.ac.ru with ESMTP/inet id q59BkaZd030844 (using TLSv1/SSLv3,
	with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256 bits), verified NO)
	Sat, 9 Jun 2012 15:46:37 +0400 (MSK)
From: Max Brazhnikov <makc@freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 11:48:17 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (FreeBSD/9.0-STABLE; KDE/4.8.3; amd64; ; )
References: <20120608204143.5a1d780a@dijkstra.cruwe.de>
	<4FD268B5.4050103@infracaninophile.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <4FD268B5.4050103@infracaninophile.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201206091148.17668.makc@freebsd.org>
Cc: "Christopher J. Ruwe" <cjr@cruwe.de>
Subject: Re: math/ess CONFLICTS with devel/noweb, help with CONFLICTS= needed
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 11:46:29 -0000

On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 22:03:49 +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> However, plain CONFLICTS is the popular choice for Makefiles, as it
> takes effect before you waste too much time building a package you can't
> install.
>
> In principle, CONFLICTS_INSTALL is frequently going to be the more
> "correct" choice.  In practice, it seems to be up to the port maintainer
> to choose which to specify, and most just use plain CONFLICTS.

CONFLICTS_INSTALL/BUILD are relatively new, that's why they are less spread than plain CONFLICTS.

Max