From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Oct 10 11:35:48 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 7573F16A4B3
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 11:35:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.netcologne.de (smtp1.netcologne.de [194.8.194.112])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C046F43FBF
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 11:35:47 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from thomas@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org)
Received: from laurel.tmseck.homedns.org (xdsl-213-196-218-121.netcologne.de
	[213.196.218.121])
	by smtp1.netcologne.de (Postfix) with SMTP id 429823AE41
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>;
	Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:35:44 +0200 (MEST)
Received: (qmail 1665 invoked by uid 1001); 10 Oct 2003 18:36:02 -0000
Date: 10 Oct 2003 18:36:02 -0000
Message-ID: <20031010183602.1664.qmail@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org>
From: tmseck-lists@netcologne.de (Thomas-Martin Seck)
To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Organization: private site
In-Reply-To: <20031010175912.GB11324@procyon.firepipe.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 18:35:48 -0000

* Will Andrews <will@csociety.org> [gmane.os.freebsd.devel.ports]:

> On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 01:28:08PM -0400, Adam Weinberger wrote:
>> >> (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?
> 
> I suspect he means it should be taught to ignore things like
> "@conflicts" if it does not recognize it.

Right.

> Noble idea, but we can't apply such a change retroactively.  The
> best way to solve pkg_info conflicts is to force a newer version
> on them through sysutils/pkg_install.  Unfortunately that hasn't
> been implemented yet, although it is trivial to do.

I often wish that portmgr@ would deploy the kind of changes to the ports
system that imply that changes to the base system's pkg_*-tools have to
be made, _after_ these changes have propagated into the base system. For
instance: Teach pkg_* how to deal with @comment, MFC it into -STABLE,
wait for the next release and _then_ go ahead and implement the change
in the ports system. Yes, I know it's hard to hold one's breath for
probably six months or longer... The other way would be to make the
package handling tools in itself be part of the ports system. This will
of course create a "package bootstrapping" problem - how to install the
package manager package?