From nobody@FreeBSD.org  Tue Jan 27 02:11:17 2004
Return-Path: <nobody@FreeBSD.org>
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAD9B16A4CE
	for <freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org>; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 02:11:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from www.freebsd.org (www.freebsd.org [216.136.204.117])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFFB343D53
	for <freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org>; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 02:11:16 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from nobody@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from www.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by www.freebsd.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0RABEdL093018
	for <freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org>; Tue, 27 Jan 2004 02:11:14 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from nobody@www.freebsd.org)
Received: (from nobody@localhost)
	by www.freebsd.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0RABDLq093017;
	Tue, 27 Jan 2004 02:11:13 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from nobody)
Message-Id: <200401271011.i0RABDLq093017@www.freebsd.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 02:11:13 -0800 (PST)
From: michael johnson <ahze@ahze.net>
To: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org
Subject: A suggestion for CONFLICTS in ports 
X-Send-Pr-Version: www-2.0

>Number:         61985
>Category:       ports
>Synopsis:       A suggestion for CONFLICTS in ports
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       non-critical
>Priority:       low
>Responsible:    portmgr
>State:          closed
>Quarter:        
>Keywords:       
>Date-Required:  
>Class:          sw-bug
>Submitter-Id:   current-users
>Arrival-Date:   Tue Jan 27 02:20:13 PST 2004
>Closed-Date:    Sat Mar 20 18:57:15 PST 2004
>Last-Modified:  Sat Mar 20 18:57:15 PST 2004
>Originator:     michael johnson
>Release:        5.2-CURRENT
>Organization:
>Environment:
FreeBSD gentoo.ahze.net 5.2-CURRENT FreeBSD 5.2-CURRENT #32: Fri Jan 23 12:07:32 EST 2004     ahze@gentoo.ahze.net:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/Gentoo  i386
>Description:
The CONFLICTS feature in ports is a nice feature but I feel it is lacking a simple but useful feature. I know about DISABLE_CONFLICTS, but I feel it would be nice to also be able to do something like, OVERRIDE_CONFLICTS="thttpd-2.* apache-2.*", and this would allow apache2 and thttpd, to be installed on the same box with out ports telling me they conflict. 

I looked at bsd.port.mk and I wasn't quite sure where to begin so I am just sending this as a simple suggestion. 

Thanks, 
  Michael Johnson

>How-To-Repeat:
      
>Fix:
      
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-ports-bugs->portmgr 
Responsible-Changed-By: pav 
Responsible-Changed-When: Tue Jan 27 03:55:52 PST 2004 
Responsible-Changed-Why:  
Over to portmgr to consider 

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=61985 

From: Sergey Matveychuk <sem@ciam.ru>
To: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org, ahze@ahze.net
Cc:  
Subject: Re: ports/61985: A suggestion for CONFLICTS in ports
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 03:24:44 +0300

 Why?
 
 Conflicted ports have files placed in the place.
 So if you install two conflicted ports, a second one overwrites file(s) 
 from a first one. So you'll brake the first port. There is no guarantee 
 this port will work with files from the second ports. Anyway it will 
 lose these files when you'll deinstall the second port.
 
 A better solituion is to install conflicted ports with a defferent PREFIXes.
 
 ---
 Sem.

From: Sergey Matveychuk <sem@ciam.ru>
To: Mike Johnson <ahze@ahze.net>
Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: ports/61985: A suggestion for CONFLICTS in ports
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:37:21 +0300

 Mike Johnson wrote:
 > The example I gave with thttpd and apache2 install nothing in the same 
 > place. The only reason I see why they CONFLICT is because they both use 
 > port 80 as the default port.
 
 I think it's stupid to use CONFLICTS this way. The idea CONFLICTS was 
 for conflicts files.
 
 ---
 Sem.

From: Mike Johnson <ahze@ahze.net>
To: Sergey Matveychuk <sem@ciam.ru>
Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: ports/61985: A suggestion for CONFLICTS in ports
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:35:00 -0500

 The example I gave with thttpd and apache2 install nothing in the same 
 place. The only reason I see why they CONFLICT is because they both use 
 port 80 as the default port.
 There is many other ports like the example I gave, and it would be nice 
 to have some variable  that have to be defined, for example 
 OVERRIDE_CONFLICTS="apache2 thttpd-" would only allow apache and thttpd 
 be installed with out printing the conflict error.
 
 Michael
 
 On Jan 29, 2004, at 7:24 PM, Sergey Matveychuk wrote:
 
 > Why?
 >
 > Conflicted ports have files placed in the place.
 > So if you install two conflicted ports, a second one overwrites 
 > file(s) from a first one. So you'll brake the first port. There is no 
 > guarantee this port will work with files from the second ports. Anyway 
 > it will lose these files when you'll deinstall the second port.
 >
 > A better solituion is to install conflicted ports with a defferent 
 > PREFIXes.
 >
 > ---
 > Sem.
 >
 

From: Mike Johnson <ahze@ahze.net>
To: Sergey Matveychuk <sem@ciam.ru>
Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: ports/61985: A suggestion for CONFLICTS in ports
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 04:41:35 -0500

 I know, That is why I emailed the mailing list.
 Michael
 
 On Jan 30, 2004, at 4:37 AM, Sergey Matveychuk wrote:
 
 > Mike Johnson wrote:
 >> The example I gave with thttpd and apache2 install nothing in the 
 >> same place. The only reason I see why they CONFLICT is because they 
 >> both use port 80 as the default port.
 >
 > I think it's stupid to use CONFLICTS this way. The idea CONFLICTS was 
 > for conflicts files.
 >
 > ---
 > Sem.
 >
 
State-Changed-From-To: open->closed 
State-Changed-By: kris 
State-Changed-When: Sat Mar 20 18:57:02 PST 2004 
State-Changed-Why:  
CONFLICTS isn't used in this way. 

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=61985 
>Unformatted:
