Date: 10 Oct 2003 18:24:57 -0000 From: tmseck-lists@netcologne.de (Thomas-Martin Seck) To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports that should use CONFLICTS Message-ID: <20031010182457.1651.qmail@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> In-Reply-To: <20031010172808.GL96543@toxic.magnesium.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Adam Weinberger <adamw@freebsd.org> [gmane.os.freebsd.devel.ports]: >>> (10.10.2003 @ 1112 PST): Thomas-Martin Seck said, in 1.9K: << >> It seems that pkg_add should be tought to ignore unknown declarations in >> package files. > > What does that mean? pkg_add(1) bails out when it reads unknown @ -directives. > Whether people are likely to install them in parallel or not is rather > irrelevant. The point is that they conflict with each other, and the > user should be aware that they will overwrite each other. Well, to me it was always obvious that, e.g., www/squid would overwrite www/squid24. >> Same here. But since squid-2.4 is not officially supported by the squid >> team anymore, I suggest to remove it completely. > > Regardless, they overwrite each other, and thus a CONFLICTS line should > be added. Well, I admit that I do not quite understand which problem CONFLICTS tries to solve. The porter's handbook is rather vague about it. In my opinion, CONFLICTS is useful but only to point out not-obvious incompatibilities. Using it to signal every kind of "duplicate file installation" would make mutt CONFLICT with tin since both install an mbox(5) document.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031010182457.1651.qmail>