You can't really @conflict between two ports which are build dependencies
of other ports.
--
Sent from a phone, apologies for poor formatting.
On 15 April 2022 13:27:40 Martin REINDL <martin@catai.org> wrote:
> Am 15.04.2022 um 13:52 schrieb Volker Schlecht:
>>
>>>> Succesfully builds
>>>>
>>>> math/armadillo
>>>> math/igraph
>>>> (math/mlpack only depends on it via ensmallen -> armadillo)
>>>> math/octave
>>>
>>> Hello Volker,
>>>
>>> Because of the possible impacts I prefer a step-by-step approach.
>>> arpack-ng is basically a new port:
>>>
>>> 1. submit arpack-ng as a new port
>>> 2. switch other ports after testing
>>> 3. when nothing is using arpack anymore, move arpack to the Attic with
>>> necessary devel/quirks adjustments
>>
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> can do, but to avoid conflicts between arpack and arpack-ng, we'd have
>> to rename the shared lib. That in turn would mean having to tweak each
>> of the packages we're moving to use -ng (otherwise they'd just pick it up).
>
> @conflict marker in PLIST
>
>> Given that essentially everyone else uses -ng succesfully, are you sure
>> that that's the way to go? Or could we live with the conflict for a while?
>
> Everyone else inside or outside the OpenBSD ports ecosystem?
>
> Speaking from my experience with breaking (and the painful experience of
> fixing) armadillo/mlpack across various archs I prefer the stepwise
> approach.
>
> BTW the other BSDs also followed this approach.
No comments:
Post a Comment