Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:34:44 +0200 From: Luca Pizzamiglio <l.pizzamiglio@bally-wulff.de> To: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [Request for Comments] Add a "AFFECT" relationship between ports Message-ID: <4E54C5B4.30601@bally-wulff.de> In-Reply-To: <4E54B5EF.7090709@infracaninophile.co.uk> References: <4E53BB67.1040805@bally-wulff.de> <4E54A1F4.50200@bally-wulff.de> <4E54B5EF.7090709@infracaninophile.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 08/24/11 10:27, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 24/08/2011 08:02, Luca Pizzamiglio wrote: >> I'd explain the behavior with an example: nvidia-driver port. >> During the installation process, this port moves the official Xorg >> openGL installing the NVidia ones. >> Removing nvidia-driver port, the old official libraries are restored. > > nvidia-driver is pretty much a special case in the ports. I think it > (and its slave ports) are the only ports that do anything like that. > > Your idea is interesting however. Do you have any other examples where > this would apply? > > Cheers, > > Matthew > Hi Matthew, at the moment I have no other examples. nvidia-driver is a special case, I know. I guess that some other ports could have the same behavior, but maintainers choose the CONFLICT relationship to solve this issue. It's possible to have devel ports or patched version of some ports that don't conflict with the original one, but just AFFECT them... Best regards, Luca
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E54C5B4.30601>