From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 13 23:39:48 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7AED229; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 23:39:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx5.roble.com (mx5.roble.com [206.40.34.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mx5.roble.com", Issuer "mx5.roble.com" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2D0AE1D; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 23:39:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from secure.postconf.com (mx5.roble.com [206.40.34.5]) by mx5.roble.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84B9368084; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 15:39:47 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <67897B782F897C2A66FCD458@atuin.in.mat.cc> References: <2A3ABE9AE68B3CE8E1B7C1A1@ogg.in.absolight.net> <20150113163325.3A8FCBDC24@prod2.absolight.net> <67897B782F897C2A66FCD458@atuin.in.mat.cc> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 15:39:47 -0800 Subject: Re: BIND REPLACE_BASE option From: "Roger Marquis" To: "Mathieu Arnold" Reply-To: marquis@roble.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 23:39:48 -0000 Mathieu Arnold wrote: > Would you rather the port installing BIND in /usr/local without telling you > anything, silently breaking your installation completely ? Certainly not but it's unprofessional to present the end-user with a dialog option that can be selected only to subsequently inform them that the option is deprecated. It might take a little programming but the error message printed when one port would overwrite files installed by another would, IMO, be better i.e., recommending removal of the conflict before installation. Roger