Early CONFLICTS detection is POLA viloation?
in [Ports]
|
Prev: Port variables to respect (was Re: mail/thunderbird3 does not buildwith gcc 4.5.1)
Next: ports/148192: version update
From: Doug Barton on 27 Jun 2010 16:14 On Sun, 27 Jun 2010, Garrett Cooper wrote: > I would think that the CONFLICTS detection should only be a > warning in the first run-through, and become a hard error when you try > and run make install. I agree. FWIW, 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 _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports(a)freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe(a)freebsd.org"
From: Doug Barton on 27 Jun 2010 16:20 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 _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports(a)freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe(a)freebsd.org"
From: Dominic Fandrey on 28 Jun 2010 06:55
On 27/06/2010 20:04, 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? Definitely not, I actually got abuse reported by portmgr for my very upset e-mails. I'm kinda mystified who was offended in which way, I have reread my e-mails and though they were born of my annoyance I find nothing there that would have offended me had I been at the receiving end. -- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports(a)freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe(a)freebsd.org" |