Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 22:30:27 +0200 From: Thomas-Martin Seck <tmseck-lists@netcologne.de> To: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CONFLICTS usage question Message-ID: <20040618203027.GA12950@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> In-Reply-To: <6EC9DFB0-C15D-11D8-9250-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> References: <20040618160618.19385.qmail@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> <6EC9DFB0-C15D-11D8-9250-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Oliver Eikemeier (eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com):
> Thomas-Martin Seck wrote:
[port (deliberately) CONFLICTS with itself]
> >>No. You will break installation with FORCE_PKG_REGISTER=yes.
> >
> >What about "-DFORCE_PKG_REGISTER -DDISABLE_CONFLICTS"?
>
> This disables the checks for already installed packages *and*
> for conflicting packages, which are disjoint sets. You can
> use this to repair files overwritten by a conflicting port
> (of course damaging the other port in the process).
Maybe, but one /can/ forcibly reinstall a self-conflicting port with
FORCE_PKG_REGISTER and DISABLE_CONFLICTS if one is determined to do so.
As an interesting side note: it is amazing how many ports install a
${PREFIX}/etc/leapsecs.dat. Where are CONFLICTS when you need them :(
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040618203027.GA12950>