Re: cvs commit: ports/security/gnutls Makefile

[ Available lists | Index of cvs-ports | Month of Sep 2005 | Week of 11 Sep 2005 | Raw email | View thread | Wrap long lines | Reply | Tag ]
From
Roman Bogorodskiy <bogorodskiy@gmail.com>
Date
11 Sep 2005 11:29:42
Subject
Re: cvs commit: ports/security/gnutls Makefile
Message-ID
20050911112816.GA755@lame.novel.ru


[ Hide this part ]
 Kris wrote:

> > 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?
>
> The point of CONFLICTS is to prevent two ports from spamming each
> other with the same installed files. That's exactly what would happen
> if someone still has gnutls-devel installed (it was only removed a few
> days ago) and tries to install this one, so it makes perfect sense to
> me that you should keep it there.

Done. But how long should it be kept?

Roman Bogorodskiy


[ Show this part (application/pgp-signature) ]

Elapsed time: 0.314 seconds