From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 18 08:46:50 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 C3BED106568F for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:46:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from j.mckeown@ru.ac.za) Received: from d.mail.ru.ac.za (d.mail.ru.ac.za [IPv6:2001:4200:1010::25:4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBF218FC15 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:46:49 +0000 (UTC) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=ru-msa; d=ru.ac.za; h=Received:From:Organization:To:Subject:Date:User-Agent:References:In-Reply-To:X-Face:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Disposition:Message-Id:X-Virus-Scanned:X-Authenticated-User; b=NwOJrudt39TXC8UdgAAt2yyzkL/8p0YhdYbVeKJ65kDRtYvBFdQm6A3KuvBkPHYDQGQQwmr6ezzmhhHdIBbtv5v0uVo34Ie7EOLBio9+lrrD6W9vay3K8CQxZW+KJb58; Received: from vorkosigan.ru.ac.za ([2001:4200:1010:1058:219:d1ff:fe9f:a932]:59271) by d.mail.ru.ac.za with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1NWnG3-000L6Q-Is for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:46:47 +0200 From: Jonathan McKeown Organization: Rhodes University To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:46:47 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 References: <20100117013722.1893895c@it.buh.tecnik93.com> <4B52C94B.10809@infracaninophile.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <4B52C94B.10809@infracaninophile.co.uk> X-Face: $@VrUx^RHy/}yu]jKf/<4T%/d|F+$j-Ol2"2J$q+%OK1]&/G_S9(=?utf-8?q?HkaQ*=60!=3FYOK=3FY!=27M=60C=0A=09aP=5C9nVPF8Q=7DCilHH8l=3B=7E!4?= =?utf-8?q?2HK6=273lg4J=7Daz?=@1Dqqh:J]M^"YPn*2IWrZON$1+G?oX3@ =?utf-8?q?k=230=0A=0954XDRg=3DYn=5FF-etwot4U=24b?=dTS{i X-Virus-Scanned: d.mail.ru.ac.za (2001:4200:1010::25:4) X-Authenticated-User: s0900137 from vorkosigan.ru.ac.za (2001:4200:1010:1058:219:d1ff:fe9f:a932) using auth_plaintext 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: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:46:50 -0000 On Sunday 17 January 2010 10:24:43 Matthew Seaman wrote: > Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote: > > I'd be very happy if I could: > > - fetch the distfiles, even if I have a conflicting port installed > > - be able to use portmaster -o to switch from one port to an other one > > that conflicts with it. > > - be able to at least compile a port (eg. for testing) without having > > to de-install the current one. > > > > I'm all in favor of restoring the old behavior with a switch available > > to turn on the new one. > > +1 > > Although a big fat warning message at fetch or build phase when operating > on a port with conflicts wouldn't go amiss. I'd agree with this too. The idea of the change seems to be to protect people from wasting time downloading and building something which they can't install without resolving a conflict. How exactly was that wasted time? Surely you don't download and build a port you're not going to install? What the change actually does is penalise people who want to download and build regardless of conflicts, to reduce the time between uninstalling the conflicting port and being able to install the replacement. This seems to me to be a very badly thought-out change which should be reverted. Jonathan