From owner-freebsd-ports  Thu Mar 19 17:42:28 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA21758
          for freebsd-ports-outgoing; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 17:42:28 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from vader.cs.berkeley.edu (vader.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.38.234])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA21752
          for <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 17:42:27 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from asami@vader.cs.berkeley.edu)
Received: from bubble.didi.com (cs11m40.ppp.infoweb.or.jp [202.219.191.152]) by vader.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA27824; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 17:42:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from asami@localhost)
	by bubble.didi.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) id BAA00714;
	Fri, 20 Mar 1998 01:29:24 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from asami)
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 01:29:24 +0900 (JST)
Message-Id: <199803191629.BAA00714@bubble.didi.com>
To: kargl@troutmask.apl.washington.edu
CC: eivind@yes.no, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
In-reply-to: <199803191538.HAA18364@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> (kargl@troutmask.apl.washington.edu)
Subject: Re: bsd.port.mk bug???
From: asami@FreeBSD.ORG (Satoshi Asami)
Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

 * 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