Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 16:48:41 +0400 From: "Andrew Pantyukhin" <infofarmer@FreeBSD.org> To: "Gerald Pfeifer" <gerald@pfeifer.com> Cc: doc@freebsd.org, portmgr@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/lang/gcc42 Makefile Message-ID: <cb5206420704090548v66222480jf31d9791a198d19@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704091358390.11247@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> References: <200704091114.l39BE4BY028528@repoman.freebsd.org> <cb5206420704090448t6eab2ad1w3949e6516563c01@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704091358390.11247@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 4/9/07, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> wrote: > On Mon, 9 Apr 2007, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: > >> Log: > >> lang/gfortran is gone; remove CONFLICTS. > > Are you sure it's a good idea? We usually keep CONFLICTS around for > > months/years after the conflicting port is gone to make life easier > > for people who only update once in a long while. > > I consulted > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/conflicts.html > and > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/committers-guide/ports.html#Q12.2.1. > and could not find anything on this question (either way, to be fair). > > In this specific case (lang/gfortran vs lang/gcc42) I am pretty sure that > users won't run into this. Among others, lang/gfortran has not been a > dependency for quite a while (months, except for one fringe port which > broke that dependency more than six weeks ago); MOVED has a redirect from > lang/gfortran to lang/gcc42; and adding lang/gcc42 on top of lang/gfortran > does not gain anything because these two have been pure aliases for quite > some months. Oh, I see. Thanks for explanation. > (If you feel strongly about this, I have no objections to re-add the > CONFLICTS line again.) Not at all, I just thought I should ask. > Adding a general recommendation along the lines of your comment to > our Committer's Guide sounds like a good idea, though. It'll help > me remember this next time around. ;-) Cool, thanks! > Proposed patch below. Is this portmgr material or can one of those > doc committers around take care of that? I don't think portmgr should be bothered, but let's cc both them (in case they have strong feelings against) and doc@. I'll file a PR with your patch if nobody picks it up and if you don't file it first within a few days. > Gerald @FreeBSD.org > > --- article.sgml.orig 2007-04-09 14:23:55.168970750 +0200 > +++ article.sgml 2007-04-09 14:27:38.126904750 +0200 > @@ -2473,6 +2473,11 @@ docs:Documentation Bug:freebsd-doc:</pro > </listitem> > </itemizedlist> > > + <para>When removing one of several conflicting ports, it is > + advisable to retain the <makevar>CONFLICT</makevar> entries > + in those other ports for a few months to cater for users who > + only update once in a while.</para> > + > <para>Alternatively, you can use the <command>rmport</command> > script, from <filename role="directory">ports/Tools/scripts</filename>. > This script has been written by &a.vd;, who is also its current Thanks much!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cb5206420704090548v66222480jf31d9791a198d19>