Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 02:58:00 +0000 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Dislike the way port conflicts are handled now Message-ID: <20100117025800.4bf02054@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <4B5254FE.1000907@strauser.com> References: <d873d5be1001161001i5d398205hea3d2ec1978ee3f@mail.gmail.com> <4B520C71.9080301@FreeBSD.org> <1263673588.1541.60.camel@hood.oook.cz> <4B5254FE.1000907@strauser.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:08:30 -0600 Kirk Strauser <kirk@strauser.com> wrote: > On 01/16/2010 02:26 PM, Pav Lucistnik wrote: > > What is the particular scenario that the new conflicts handling > > broke for you? Often you really want to ignore locally installed > > packages and then it's better to override LOCALBASE to /nonex or > > something similar, instead of disabling conflict handling.. > Pav, I'm the OP, and described the problem in the first post. To > recap, though, say I want to upgrade from the > databases/mysql50-client port to databases/mysql51-client. Without > taking extra steps such as using -DDISABLE_CONFLICTS or removing the > CONFLICTS definition from the Makefile, I can't even start > downloading the distfiles (using "make fetch") until I pkg_delete the > old version. With the old system, I could do everything up through > building the new port so that the time between running pkg_delete and > "make reinstall" is minimized. Is it so hard to type make -DDISABLE_CONFLICTS fetch to, fetch and make -DDISABLE_CONFLICTS to build - given that this is something that's rarely needed. When I first read this it sounded bad, but the more I think about it the more I think the change is sensible. If it bothers you that much why don't you just alias make -DDISABLE_CONFLICTS to make-anyway.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100117025800.4bf02054>