Kris wrote:
> > > > Modified files:
> > > > security/gnutls Makefile
> > > > Log:
> > > > Don't CONFLICTS with gnutls-devel since it has been removed.
> > >
> > > What if users still have it installed?
> >
> > There were no ports which depended on gnutls-devel in ports tree. So I
> > don't think many users have it installed. And if they really have, I
> > suppose they should use security/gnutls instead. Though I can revive
> > CONFLICTS if you think it is needed.
>
> I'm pretty sure there were, previously.
Even if there were, I think it's quite obvious that port which has been
removed from the ports tree should be deinstalled from user's system,
isn't it? BTW, portupgrade notes when there are such kind of ports in
the system.
I think the proper solution is deinstalling obsolete port (i.e. gnutls-devel
in our case) from the system, but not CONFLICTing with dead ports' ghosts.
And Porters Handbook doesn't say we should CONFLICT with nonexistent ports.
Am I missing something?
Roman Bogorodskiy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (FreeBSD)
iQCVAwUBQyLTqoB0WzgdqspGAQJXbwQAjlcHPbYgEJcY+P22KIoSV3HqVUtNsegk
aX/7DlYGhAcru5F/epzJDUvtEbVGaPKPraHtw/o6Ch9z7hzKP5ifEY1jSjfbSLvC
qXKti9WT3cNWXOwGvmriWfr5aX07ISfdar0b2dCFJ8TOi/sl0oOCuRrpBGyXPdBu
L7EE8T+5KAE=
=FlzZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----