Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 08:48:22 +0200 From: Jonathan McKeown <j.mckeown@ru.ac.za> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Dislike the way port conflicts are handled now Message-ID: <201001190848.22736.j.mckeown@ru.ac.za> In-Reply-To: <d873d5be1001180748j1a69261ana598cb0efa346b9a@mail.gmail.com> References: <d873d5be1001180748j1a69261ana598cb0efa346b9a@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 18 January 2010 17:48:37 b. f. wrote: > Argh! =A0Stop! I wish that people who felt the need to add to this > thread would read the prior posts beforehand, and consider their > comments before posting. I don't know why you assume people didn't. I read the whole thread. I saw=20 people who had individual special requirements, but I didn't see anything=20 that suggested I was wrong in assuming the most common use case, by far, to= =20 be downloading and building a port in order to install it. Assuming that *is* indeed the commonest use case, this change makes life a= =20 little more difficult for almost everyone in order to save possibly as much= =20 as tens of minutes of wasted time for a few people. Worse than that, the new behaviour either increases downtime (by requiring= =20 that the conflicting port be removed before even starting to download the=20 replacement) or requires, as you pointed out, setting a risky option which = if=20 accidentally misused, could break the whole system. I still think it's an ill-considered change for the worse to make the new=20 behaviour the default. Jonathan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201001190848.22736.j.mckeown>