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 > > CONFLICTS= noweb
Usually you'ld put something like: CONFLICTS= noweb-[0-9]* 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. > 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? 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. 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. 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. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature