From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 18 21:47:58 2004 Return-Path: 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 DC6AA16A4CE for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:47:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp1.netcologne.de (smtp1.netcologne.de [194.8.194.112]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7246D43D2F for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:47:58 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tmseck-lists@netcologne.de) Received: from laurel.tmseck.homedns.org (xdsl-213-196-242-238.netcologne.de [213.196.242.238]) by smtp1.netcologne.de (Postfix) with SMTP id BB712390B5 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 23:47:13 +0200 (MEST) Received: (qmail 32366 invoked by uid 1001); 18 Jun 2004 21:47:44 -0000 Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 23:47:21 +0200 From: Thomas-Martin Seck To: Oliver Eikemeier Message-ID: <20040618214721.GB12950@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> References: <20040618203027.GA12950@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> <4E5BA166-C168-11D8-9250-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E5BA166-C168-11D8-9250-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Organization: a private site in Germany X-PGP-KeyID: DF46EE05 X-PGP-Fingerprint: A38F AE66 6B11 6EB9 5D1A B67D 2444 2FE1 DF46 EE05 X-Attribution: tms cc: freebsd-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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:47:59 -0000 * Oliver Eikemeier (eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com): > > Am Freitag den, 18. Juni 2004, um 22:30, schrieb Thomas-Martin Seck: > > >* Oliver Eikemeier (eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com): > > > >>Thomas-Martin Seck wrote: > > > >[port (deliberately) CONFLICTS with itself] > > ??? Of course bugs like that won't hinder a port to install. Yes, that's what I am trying to say. > >>>>No. You will break installation with FORCE_PKG_REGISTER=yes. > >>> > >>>What about "-DFORCE_PKG_REGISTER -DDISABLE_CONFLICTS"? > >> > >>This disables the checks for already installed packages *and* > >>for conflicting packages, which are disjoint sets. You can > >>use this to repair files overwritten by a conflicting port > >>(of course damaging the other port in the process). > > > >Maybe, but one /can/ forcibly reinstall a self-conflicting port with > >FORCE_PKG_REGISTER and DISABLE_CONFLICTS if one is determined to do so. > > Yep. You won't notice when you damage other ports, (which you will > when you do not use DISABLE_CONFLICTS), but you can do it that way. I do not and did not say that one should disable conflicts checking by default. My sole argument is that it can be used as a last resort for the FORCE_PKG_REGISTER case (I do not think that this is a common usage, most people use portupgrade to update/reinstall a port I guess). > Anyway, read bsd.port.mk if you want to see other uses of > FORCE_PKG_REGISTER > and why conflicting with itself is a relly bad idea. CONFLICTS and > FORCE_PKG_REGISTER deal with different topics. Please elaborate, since I still fail to see the real problems with self conflicting and I find the hoops one has to jump through using more or less awkward glob expressions to avoid it not really elegant. (And no, the "problem" with FORCE_PKG_REGISTER does not count for me, since it can be worked around, if really needed. This is a strawman, IMHO.). > >As an interesting side note: it is amazing how many ports install a > >${PREFIX}/etc/leapsecs.dat. Where are CONFLICTS when you need them :( > > Which ports are you referring to? devel/libtai and mail/mess822. sysutils/clockspeed installs leapsecs.dat to etc/clockspeed; I do not know whether this makes sense at all (i.e. whether sntpclock would look there for it; I did not look at the code though). For the records, the CONFLICTS approach is not too bad, and instead of bikeshedding over self-conflictness we resp. portmgr@ should tackle the more subtle conflicts, e.g. the leapsecs.dat conflict or the mbox.5 conflict between mail/mutt and news/tin (my all time favourite). Maybe the ports cluster could be abused to generate a database of plist files which could be scanned for duplicates?