From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Oct 10 11:24:41 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 1B2F916A4B3
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 11:24:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.netcologne.de (smtp1.netcologne.de [194.8.194.112])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B05A43FA3
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 11:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from thomas@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org)
Received: from laurel.tmseck.homedns.org (xdsl-213-168-109-223.netcologne.de
	[213.168.109.223])
	by smtp1.netcologne.de (Postfix) with SMTP id 297583A269
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>;
	Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:24:36 +0200 (MEST)
Received: (qmail 1652 invoked by uid 1001); 10 Oct 2003 18:24:57 -0000
Date: 10 Oct 2003 18:24:57 -0000
Message-ID: <20031010182457.1651.qmail@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org>
From: tmseck-lists@netcologne.de (Thomas-Martin Seck)
To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Organization: private site
In-Reply-To: <20031010172808.GL96543@toxic.magnesium.net>
X-Newsgroups: gmane.os.freebsd.devel.ports
X-Attribution: tms
Subject: Re: ports that should use CONFLICTS
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:24:41 -0000

* 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.