Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 01:33:42 +0100 From: Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org> To: marquis@roble.com Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BIND REPLACE_BASE option Message-ID: <B5BC1F9B1E9B32C89F11B397@atuin.in.mat.cc> In-Reply-To: <20150113233952.BF862BDC24@prod2.absolight.net> References: <D029D964D3A96A570922090C@ogg.in.absolight.net> <ee422bd630292fe6f7bc5439799667de@lhaven.homeip.net> <2A3ABE9AE68B3CE8E1B7C1A1@ogg.in.absolight.net> <20150113163325.3A8FCBDC24@prod2.absolight.net> <67897B782F897C2A66FCD458@atuin.in.mat.cc> <20150113233952.BF862BDC24@prod2.absolight.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
+--On 13 janvier 2015 15:39:47 -0800 Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com> wrote: | 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. The dialog option you talk about says: [ ] REPLACE_BASE EOL, no longer supported I'm quite sure the end-user you're talking about can get a clue from it, and if he either already had selected it before, or he just selected it, he will get: ===> bind99-9.9.6P1_3 REPLACE_BASE is no longer supported. The end-user can then get another clue and maybe unselect it. Regards, -- Mathieu Arnold
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?B5BC1F9B1E9B32C89F11B397>