On Sun, 27 Jun 2010, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
Hello, Freebsd-ports.
I understand, that this change (ports/137855, bsd.port.mk:1.632)
was made 6 months ago, but I've noticed it only now (twice in one
day!).
Am I only person, who thinks, that this change is HUGE POLA
violation?
PR says about "big tarball is downloaded and CONFLICTS are detected
after that," but I've have two more realistic scenarios, when early
conflict detection is VERY annoying. Thry are real-life scenarios,
occured today for me in a row.
(1) I have `subversion' port installed, and want to `makesum' in
updated subversion-freebsd port directory (because I'm maintainer and
need to update port with new version, which have new tarball). OOPS.
I cannot even download new tarball -- confilct is detected.
I agree that this is kind of a pain, but as developers we are expected
to deal with a little pain to make life for the users easier. :) (One
could very convincingly argue that this particular change introduced too
much pain for too little benefit, but I digress.) Someone else already
mentioned -DDISABLE_CONFLICTS which works for everything, including
makesum. Of course, I almost always forget to add that the first time
...
(2) I want upgrade perl from 5.8.x to 5.10.x. Type command:
#portupgrade -rfo lang/petl5.10 perl-5.8.9_3
Ooops, confilct is detected, upgraid failed. GRRRR!
FYI, I added code in portmaster to handle this. With portupgrade you
could probably do 'DISABLE_CONFLICTS=YES portupgrade ....' but don't
quote me on that.
hth,
Doug
--
Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
