Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 13:25:20 +0200 From: "Christopher J. Ruwe" <cjr@cruwe.de> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: math/ess CONFLICTS with devel/noweb, help with CONFLICTS= needed Message-ID: <20120609132520.42b0af28@dijkstra.cruwe.de> In-Reply-To: <4FD268B5.4050103@infracaninophile.co.uk> References: <20120608204143.5a1d780a@dijkstra.cruwe.de> <4FD268B5.4050103@infracaninophile.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Sig_/BV50J58=Nnj//5quufIlc47 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 22:03:49 +0100 Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> wrote: > On 08/06/2012 19:41, Christopher J. Ruwe wrote: > > From > > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/book.html#CONFLICTS > > I gather that I should add something like > >=20 > > CONFLICTS=3D noweb >=20 > Usually you'ld put something like: >=20 > CONFLICTS=3D noweb-[0-9]* >=20 > just to avoid accidentally matching a package which happened to have > the string 'noweb' in its name. As it is, there is only devel/noweb > that would match in the ports at the moment, but making that glob > expression more specific is a good principle. >=20 > > to the Makefile. Am I correct in my assumption on using CONFLICTS > > instead of CONFLICTS_INSTALL and am I correct on the naming of > > noweb? >=20 > CONFLICTS_INSTALL means you can build your package in the presence of > the conflicting package. I'd guess that most of the conflicts in the > ports tree are actually of this type: due to file name collisions in > the installed packages. >=20 > However, plain CONFLICTS is the popular choice for Makefiles, as it > takes effect before you waste too much time building a package you > can't install. >=20 > In principle, CONFLICTS_INSTALL is frequently going to be the more > "correct" choice. In practice, it seems to be up to the port > maintainer to choose which to specify, and most just use plain > CONFLICTS. >=20 > Cheers, >=20 > Matthew >=20 Thanks for your quick answer. Incidentally, I am at this moment also preparing a maintainer update for a new version of math/ess. Should I perpare two PRs, one for the CONFLICTS and one for the actual update or is it permissable to pack these two into one? Thanks, cheers, --=20 Christopher J. Ruwe TZ: GMT + 1h --Sig_/BV50J58=Nnj//5quufIlc47 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJP0zKvAAoJEJTIKW/o3iwURU0QAOYWaU+2CWvUVNYK2Ey0OYD7 HJMOYB5UXGASe5F4YzYCPydiSm6aVMOjs+TPub6ENq+UJR6wJyKWx7kcqu/wpJbZ Skh0+4xaTI2mZi5X6jtYjQ0AoaLIdUf2tPNoQpw6XLgTYhA6qnXMMHsRKciezDo6 GV387P8CzPD4cbxSHL301ZYPiNiJLc9IgjUlVTrwmb/c2TuisYFxSKMnoI4t/VwU p361p7SrZNwmhcG/TWWttiVBU6My2gWjLgHchUBt7zbuYG38D6run7NDxckYnvmE 8tyEZ7wQ1BKydDkOVK0UUeDvQZutQnOTg6oV5nJ2kJax//eGeg5PV3uRsy/jMYLX u1q/PrMDrrvZK+ltStyXPQm/JyKsGfHLjVVYJUKZHqLGxHOgbVMOluAyYCPjwaWj AVgqbCXF2JUcNtUx5uF0qrDtTBUZyocE1CMA72hQoakoBnZbfHSDXB6sy7LYBjaE UGQWWJuro9i+xnqf04Ilhp+AlZaff48z29Y2Bk9De17NJFju4DFb0RPswG4wP/1m 5trrhsK/8ON8xYwqVxC0P6Yb7kJeGCXvhH1rWb0D3gmGOWlE3gu50bY9f4jqX7mL l6C3SHWyH/smvEs2I10lniq6RIbzTJrar8PkbX5lbIj75E5RJgOd1S4874N3aZzg J2I1q90mFpkJn706lWZN =gb0J -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/BV50J58=Nnj//5quufIlc47--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120609132520.42b0af28>