On Sunday 17 January 2010 10:24:43 Matthew Seaman wrote:
Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
I'd be very happy if I could:
- fetch the distfiles, even if I have a conflicting port installed
- be able to use portmaster -o to switch from one port to an other one
that conflicts with it.
- be able to
Argh! Stop! I wish that people who felt the need to add to this
thread would read the prior posts beforehand, and consider their
comments before posting. To answer two previous posts:
I believe that he is talking about changing _when_ the check for
conflicts is made; whereas DISABLE_CONFLICTS
On Monday 18 January 2010 17:48:37 b. f. wrote:
Argh! Stop! I wish that people who felt the need to add to this
thread would read the prior posts beforehand, and consider their
comments before posting.
I don't know why you assume people didn't. I read the whole thread. I saw
people who had
Greg Larkin píše v so 16. 01. 2010 v 18:02 -0500:
Here is the original post:
http://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-questions@freebsd.org/msg227363.html
I will agree that `portupgrade -o` is way too useful feature.
I'd vote for reverting to the old behaviour.
I thought portmgr might have some
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 11:44:05 +0100
Pav Lucistnik p...@freebsd.org wrote:
Greg Larkin píše v so 16. 01. 2010 v 18:02 -0500:
Here is the original post:
http://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-questions@freebsd.org/msg227363.html
I will agree that `portupgrade -o` is way too useful feature.
Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
I'd be very happy if I could:
- fetch the distfiles, even if I have a conflicting port installed
- be able to use portmaster -o to switch from one port to an other one
that conflicts with it.
- be able to at least compile a port (eg. for testing) without having
to
On 1/17/10, Martin Wilke m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 11:44:05 +0100
Pav Lucistnik p...@freebsd.org wrote:
Greg Larkin píše v so 16. 01. 2010 v 18:02 -0500:
I will agree that `portupgrade -o` is way too useful feature.
I'd vote for reverting to the old behaviour.
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010, Matthew Seaman wrote:
Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
I'd be very happy if I could:
- fetch the distfiles, even if I have a conflicting port installed
- be able to use portmaster -o to switch from one port to an other one
that conflicts with it.
- be able to at least compile a
In the last episode (Jan 17), Martin Wilke said:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 11:44:05 +0100
Pav Lucistnik p...@freebsd.org wrote:
Greg Larkin píse v so 16. 01. 2010 v 18:02 -0500:
Here is the original post:
http://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-questions@freebsd.org/msg227363.html
I will
On 16/01/2010 6:57 π.μ., Greg Larkin wrote:
Craig Whipp wrote:
On Jan 15, 2010, at 9:44 AM, Kirk Strauser wrote:
Until recently, it seems like port dependencies were handled at
installation time. Lately, they're handled any time I try to do
anything with a port. I absolutely detest the
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:57:35PM -0500, Greg Larkin typed:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Craig Whipp wrote:
On Jan 15, 2010, at 9:44 AM, Kirk Strauser wrote:
Until recently, it seems like port dependencies were handled at
installation time. Lately, they're
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:57:35PM -0500, Greg Larkin typed:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Craig Whipp wrote:
On Jan 15, 2010, at 9:44 AM, Kirk Strauser wrote:
Until recently, it seems like port dependencies were handled at
installation time. Lately, they're handled
Em Sáb, 2010-01-16 às 07:00 -0500, b. f. escreveu:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:57:35PM -0500, Greg Larkin typed:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Craig Whipp wrote:
On Jan 15, 2010, at 9:44 AM, Kirk Strauser wrote:
Until recently, it seems like port dependencies
On 01/15/2010 10:57 PM, Greg Larkin wrote:
This change was based on a recent PR
(http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=137855) and made it into the
tree a couple of weeks ago:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk.diff?r1=1.631;r2=1.632
Since some folks like the old
Since some folks like the old behavior and some folks like the new
behavior, what do you all think of a user-selectable make.conf option to
choose where the check-conflicts target appears in the port build sequence?
Regards,
Greg
I'd love that. The new behavior isn't a bad default, but it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
b. f. wrote:
Since some folks like the old behavior and some folks like the new
behavior, what do you all think of a user-selectable make.conf option to
choose where the check-conflicts target appears in the port build sequence?
Regards,
Greg
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 01:01:47PM -0500, b. f. wrote:
Since some folks like the old behavior and some folks like the new
behavior, what do you all think of a user-selectable make.conf option to
choose where the check-conflicts target appears in the port build sequence?
Regards,
Greg
On 1/16/2010 1:01 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
snip
Best:
check for conflicts early, error out early if there are conflicts so
one doesn't waste hours compiling something and checking/installing
dependencies and so on
Middling:
check for conflicts late
Worst:
don't
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:18:15 -0600
Programmer In Training p...@joseph-a-nagy-jr.us articulated:
That does nothing for conflict resolution, though. That's a big
concern for me because in the past, only one distribution of Linux
(not having used any of the BSD's before, cannot comment on them
Greg Larkin píše v so 16. 01. 2010 v 13:58 -0500:
That's exactly what I proposed. The bsd.port.mk could be patched to
support a new variable (EARLY_CONFLICT_CHECK=yes or somesuch) that
shifts the check-conflict target from its old position (part of the
install sequence) to its new position
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:01:47 -0500
b. f. bf1...@googlemail.com wrote:
Wait a minute; rewind. Isn't that what make -DDISABLE_CONFLICTS
does?
I believe that he is talking about changing _when_ the check for
conflicts is made; whereas DISABLE_CONFLICTS ignores the check,
regardless of when
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Pav Lucistnik wrote:
Greg Larkin píše v so 16. 01. 2010 v 13:58 -0500:
That's exactly what I proposed. The bsd.port.mk could be patched to
support a new variable (EARLY_CONFLICT_CHECK=yes or somesuch) that
shifts the check-conflict target from
On 1/16/10, Pav Lucistnik p...@freebsd.org wrote:
Greg Larkin píše v so 16. 01. 2010 v 13:58 -0500:
That's exactly what I proposed. The bsd.port.mk could be patched to
support a new variable (EARLY_CONFLICT_CHECK=yes or somesuch) that
shifts the check-conflict target from its old position
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 21:26:28 +0100
Pav Lucistnik p...@freebsd.org wrote:
Greg Larkin píše v so 16. 01. 2010 v 13:58 -0500:
That's exactly what I proposed. The bsd.port.mk could be patched to
support a new variable (EARLY_CONFLICT_CHECK=yes or somesuch) that
shifts the check-conflict
On 01/16/2010 02:26 PM, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
What is the particular scenario that the new conflicts handling broke
for you? Often you really want to ignore locally installed packages and
then it's better to override LOCALBASE to /nonex or something similar,
instead of disabling conflict
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:08:30 -0600
Kirk Strauser k...@strauser.com wrote:
On 01/16/2010 02:26 PM, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
What is the particular scenario that the new conflicts handling
broke for you? Often you really want to ignore locally installed
packages and then it's better to override
On Jan 15, 2010, at 9:44 AM, Kirk Strauser wrote:
Until recently, it seems like port dependencies were handled at
installation time. Lately, they're handled any time I try to do
anything with a port. I absolutely detest the new behavior. Example
cases:
OLD WAY:
$ cd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Craig Whipp wrote:
On Jan 15, 2010, at 9:44 AM, Kirk Strauser wrote:
Until recently, it seems like port dependencies were handled at
installation time. Lately, they're handled any time I try to do
anything with a port. I absolutely detest the
28 matches
Mail list logo
