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>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Monday 18 January 2010 17:48:37 b. f. wrote: > Argh! Stop! 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 people who had individual special requirements, but I didn't see anything that suggested I was wrong in assuming the most common use case, by far, to be downloading and building a port in order to install it. Assuming that *is* indeed the commonest use case, this change makes life a little more difficult for almost everyone in order to save possibly as much as tens of minutes of wasted time for a few people. Worse than that, the new behaviour either increases downtime (by requiring that the conflicting port be removed before even starting to download the replacement) or requires, as you pointed out, setting a risky option which if accidentally misused, could break the whole system. I still think it's an ill-considered change for the worse to make the new behaviour the default. Jonathanhelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201001190848.22736.j.mckeown>