From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jun 18 11:31:18 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B35216A4CE
	for <ports@FreeBSD.org>; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 11:31:18 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from fillmore.dyndns.org (port-212-202-50-15.dynamic.qsc.de
	[212.202.50.15])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEAD543D1F
	for <ports@FreeBSD.org>; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 11:31:17 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com)
Received: from [172.16.0.11] (helo=localhost)
	by fillmore.dyndns.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168)
	(Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD))
	id 1BbHZr-000NsM-Oe; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:30:39 +0200
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:30:34 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v482)
To: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su>
From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com>
In-Reply-To: <20040618111024.GA5660@comp.chem.msu.su>
Message-Id: <EA246302-C11A-11D8-9250-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.9
cc: ports@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: CONFLICTS usage question
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 11:31:18 -0000

Yar Tikhiy wrote:

> Is it all right if a wildcard pattern listed in CONFLICTS
> matches the port's package itself?

No. You will break installation with FORCE_PKG_REGISTER=yes.

> Here's why I'm asking:
> There is a port "mail/bogofilter" that has 2 child ports,
> "mail/bogofilter-qdbm" and "mail/bogofilter-tdb".  I'm about
> to add the 3rd child port for it, "russian/ru-bogofilter".
> Presently, the existing ports cross-list each other in CONFLICTS.
> It seems easier to have a single CONFLICTS setting, in the master
> port, that reads:
>
> CONFLICTS=	bogofilter-* [a-z][a-z]-bogofilter-*
>
> Will that be legal in our ports framework?

No, see above. Besides, you should use something like bogofilter-0.*,
otherwise you would CONFLICT with ports like bogofilter-doc, which
might coexist with the other ports.

-Oliver