Date: 10 Oct 2003 18:36:02 -0000 From: tmseck-lists@netcologne.de (Thomas-Martin Seck) To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports that should use CONFLICTS Message-ID: <20031010183602.1664.qmail@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> In-Reply-To: <20031010175912.GB11324@procyon.firepipe.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* 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?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031010183602.1664.qmail>