Re: math/ess CONFLICTS with devel/noweb, help with CONFLICTS= needed
On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 21:16:04 +0200 Mel Flynn wrote: > On 9-6-2012 14:02, Matthew Seaman wrote: > > On 09/06/2012 12:25, Christopher J. Ruwe wrote: > >> 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? > > > > It is best to put all the changes you want to make into one PR. > > That will get it processed most efficiently. > > And if there's a PR for the conflict problem, then mention in your > update PR that this update "closes PR xx". > Thanks for reminding me, I would surely have forgotten. However, closing another PR does not apply, I was approached using private mail by a group apparently implementing something like a FreeBSD ports conflicts checker, who are systematically combing the ports tree for conflicts not yet known by the maintainers. Some maintainer update PRs already adress problems thus found. Thanks, cheers, -- Christopher J. Ruwe TZ: GMT + 1h signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: math/ess CONFLICTS with devel/noweb, help with CONFLICTS= needed
On 9-6-2012 14:02, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 09/06/2012 12:25, Christopher J. Ruwe wrote: >> 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? > > It is best to put all the changes you want to make into one PR. That > will get it processed most efficiently. And if there's a PR for the conflict problem, then mention in your update PR that this update "closes PR xx". -- Mel ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: math/ess CONFLICTS with devel/noweb, help with CONFLICTS= needed
On 09/06/2012 12:25, Christopher J. Ruwe wrote: > 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? It is best to put all the changes you want to make into one PR. That will get it processed most efficiently. 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
Re: math/ess CONFLICTS with devel/noweb, help with CONFLICTS= needed
On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 22:03:49 +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: > 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. CONFLICTS_INSTALL/BUILD are relatively new, that's why they are less spread than plain CONFLICTS. Max ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: math/ess CONFLICTS with devel/noweb, help with CONFLICTS= needed
On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 22:03:49 +0100 Matthew Seaman 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 > > > > 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 > 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, -- Christopher J. Ruwe TZ: GMT + 1h signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: math/ess CONFLICTS with devel/noweb, help with CONFLICTS= needed
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
math/ess CONFLICTS with devel/noweb, help with CONFLICTS= needed
I am the (still inexperienced) maintainer of math/ess. Apparently, math/ess, an emacs mode for the statics lang R/S (Emacs Speaks Statistics) conflicts with the devel/noweb literate programming tool, more specifically, it's emacs mode. Both add a noweb-mode.el in share/emacs/site-lisp/, so that I will need to add a CONFLICTS-line to the port. From http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/book.html#CONFLICTS I gather that I should add something like CONFLICTS=noweb 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? I hope this to be only a short term solution; as noweb amongst other languages also targets the R-language and the problem should in principle also apply to various Linux-distros, I have respectfully asked the Emacs Speaks Stastics-people if possibly the file (which is targeted at Sweave-integration) could be renamed. Anyways, the conflict should be marked and I would appreciate any input on my idea of writing a CONFLICTS-line. Thanks very much, cheers, -- Christopher J. Ruwe TZ: GMT + 1h ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
