From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Jun 22 01:37:53 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF07D213
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Sat, 22 Jun 2013 01:37:53 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from jtrigg@spamcop.net)
Received: from argent.heraldsnet.net (argent.heraldsnet.net [69.60.117.17])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDD4913C0
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Sat, 22 Jun 2013 01:37:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail.scadian.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by argent.heraldsnet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A372B9F7
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 21:37:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from 98.218.173.235 (SquirrelMail authenticated user blaise)
 by mail.scadian.net with HTTP; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 21:37:52 -0400
Message-ID: <8d7b915cbd29749d261a72b86a68bed7.squirrel@mail.scadian.net>
In-Reply-To: <51C4ADA2.2030207@FreeBSD.org>
References: <CAG5KPzy_1hfJ101KrSufxvg_wdv++jo4iyEw+Jo37TTjXgM0kg@mail.gmail.com>
 <51C46978.2010102@freebsd.org>
 <CAG5KPzxJW8nPFiVvuEt0EUOPMUAk=ATY20Oud=JWxPE4s2+5rg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130621171843.GB78584@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
 <20130621191151.GB46303@spamcop.net> <51C4ADA2.2030207@FreeBSD.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 21:37:52 -0400
Subject: Re: texinfo vs. emacs...
From: "Jim Trigg" <jtrigg@spamcop.net>
To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.22
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/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: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 01:37:53 -0000

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