Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 21:37:52 -0400 From: "Jim Trigg" <jtrigg@spamcop.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: texinfo vs. emacs... Message-ID: <8d7b915cbd29749d261a72b86a68bed7.squirrel@mail.scadian.net> In-Reply-To: <51C4ADA2.2030207@FreeBSD.org> References: <CAG5KPzy_1hfJ101KrSufxvg_wdv%2B%2Bjo4iyEw%2BJo37TTjXgM0kg@mail.gmail.com> <51C46978.2010102@freebsd.org> <CAG5KPzxJW8nPFiVvuEt0EUOPMUAk=ATY20Oud=JWxPE4s2%2B5rg@mail.gmail.com> <20130621171843.GB78584@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <20130621191151.GB46303@spamcop.net> <51C4ADA2.2030207@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, June 21, 2013 3:46 pm, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 21/06/2013 20:11, Jim Trigg wrote: >> OK, is there a way to do this for specific ports so that an >> administrator >> can approve specific combinations of ports without giving blanket >> permission? > > No, unfortunately there isn't. Given that you need root permissions to > install packaged software in any case, it would be impossible to enforce > any selectivity like that. I didn't see this as necessarily more difficult than doing similar things in make.conf (either old-style or optionsNG)... > Besides which, two or more ports installing a file in the same place is > a bug, when those ports might reasonably be installed on the same system > simultaneously. The old pkg_tools were incredibly lax about such > things, so there hasn't been sufficient impetus to clean up such > occurrences. My point is that if an admin runs into a bug between one pair of ports and installs this workaround, s/he won't see similar bugs between other pairs of ports to report them. If there were a way to specify this at the port level (something like "ignore conflicts with these other ports"), that would give a workaround for known bugs without masking not-yet-known bugs. Thanks, Jim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8d7b915cbd29749d261a72b86a68bed7.squirrel>