From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 19 06:48:26 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 8F5C2106566C for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 06:48:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from j.mckeown@ru.ac.za) Received: from c.mail.ru.ac.za (c.mail.ru.ac.za [IPv6:2001:4200:1010::25:3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 998A18FC12 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 06:48:25 +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=panGCIFeOiw6PV6zlPw20CKjj7kyqSJgk2yQIg3l/oVPhG9ResEYJ547mzREj+LpMfOPHWj4TR1vEeei6J+lDQTrnvOR3DsgLAl8FFWTEWwxqXix2uBoXbY+eb99F/EB; Received: from vorkosigan.ru.ac.za ([2001:4200:1010:1058:219:d1ff:fe9f:a932]:61119) by c.mail.ru.ac.za with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1NX7t1-0000pO-34 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 08:48:23 +0200 From: Jonathan McKeown Organization: Rhodes University To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 08:48:22 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 References: In-Reply-To: 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: c.mail.ru.ac.za (2001:4200:1010::25:3) 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: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 06:48:26 -0000 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