Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 01:29:24 +0900 (JST) From: asami@FreeBSD.ORG (Satoshi Asami) To: kargl@troutmask.apl.washington.edu Cc: eivind@yes.no, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bsd.port.mk bug??? Message-ID: <199803191629.BAA00714@bubble.didi.com> In-Reply-To: <199803191538.HAA18364@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> (kargl@troutmask.apl.washington.edu)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Add the TK_HEADER_CONFLICT variable!!!! The port will not have
* a problem.
That's what we are essentially doing now. Maybe it's only 5%, but if
a few dozen ports break, that's bad enough (just think "package
building machine" or "file server").
* I'm sure you did investigate many alternatives. I guess I've
* been spoiled by your normal elegant solutions to these kinds of
* problems. IMHO, completely disabling the ports tree is not
* an elegant solution.
I never said this was an elegant solution. If you ask me, it is a
workable solution to an extremely ugly problem. ;)
* IGNORE= ": You have an old file \(${file}\) that could cause problems
* for some ports to compile. \(${file}\) can safely be removed."
Sorry, but I don't understand what improvement that is over what we
have now. (The "You may have to reinstall..." part is there because
it's sometimes necessary, depending on how old your tcl/tk
installation is.)
Are you suggesting we replace the "Please remove it and try again"
with "\(${file}\) can safely be removed"?
Satoshi
P.S. For the source tree impaired: this is what we have now.
IGNORE= ": You have an old file \(${file}\) that could cause problems for some ports to compile. Please remove it and try again. You may have to reinstall tcl from the ports tree afterwards"
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199803191629.BAA00714>