From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Dec 14 14:50:42 2010
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033)
	id 1D6621065672; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:50:42 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:50:42 +0000
From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>
To: Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20101214145042.GB19947@FreeBSD.org>
References: <201012101451.oBAEpxuL094179@repoman.freebsd.org>
	<20101213052536.GA84102@FreeBSD.org> <4D05E761.5020409@FreeBSD.org>
	<20101214025135.GA20090@FreeBSD.org> <4D073CEA.7030808@FreeBSD.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4D073CEA.7030808@FreeBSD.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Cc: Beat Gaetzi <beat@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org,
	ports-committers@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/mail/thunderbird Makefile distinfo
	ports/mail/thunderbird/files
	patch-mozilla-xpcom-reflect-xptinfo-src-xptiInterfaceInfoManager.cpp
X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: **OBSOLETE** CVS commit messages for the entire tree
	<cvs-all.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-all>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-all@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:50:42 -0000

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:46:18AM +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> On 2010/12/14 03:51, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> 
> >Separating Cs into C_B and C_I suggest that there are at least comparable
> >number of ports that require each one, but I've only seen ports conflict
> >because they install the same files.  Can you give us a list of ports
> 
> Just because you haven't seen something does not mean it doesn't exist.

I never implied it does not exist.  Hence the "can you give" part and
consecutive idea that it might (should?) be fixed in proper way.  Why
did you quote me only partially?

> >Same shit, but now 8 characters
> >longer and does not line up nicely with most of the knobs in Makefile.
> 
> So now the beautiness of Makefiles should take precedence over 
> functionality?

You know, quite often beautiness of Makefiles indicate how beautiful
underlying infrastructure is.

You also apparently neglected my technical point: even if new stuff is
OK, why not *improve* it by defaulting CONFLICTS to CONFLICTS_INSTALL?

> Now can we get back to doing something useful, like replacing spaces in 
> Makefile headers with tabs?

Any problem with that?

./danfe