Re: postgresql packages, PG_SUBPREFIX and CONFLICTS

[Aleksej Saushev <asau%inbox.ru@localhost>]

Aleksey Cheusov <cheusov%tut.by@localhost> writes:

> Hi. I recently commited the following
>
>    http://mail-index.netbsd.org/pkgsrc-changes/2012/10/21/msg079998.html
>
> and this commit raises a number for questions which should be discussed
> in a wider audience. My goal is to make CONFLICTS entries in
> pkg_summary(5) up-to-date for better work of binary package managers.
>
> Please read the whole thread.
>
> OBATA noticed that in postgresql90 there is a variable PG_SUBPREFIX that
> changes the prefix for this package. He later proposed to either remove
> PG_SUBPREFIX and register conflicts or to avoid them between postgresql
> packages and remove all CONFLICTS. Personally, I don't have anything
> against avoiding CONFLICTS in this case but I'm not willing to do this
> myself. So, unless anyone do this, I'd like to completely remove
> PG_SUBPREFIX and keep CONFLICTS up-to-date.

I strongly object to this. Whoever removed PG_SUBPREFIX was wrong,
this is the feature that is rather frequently needed in practice.
CONFLICTS, on contrary, is _never_ needed. pkg_add handles this very well.

> At least for now. I'm fine
> with either of these solution but reverting my commit, as proposed by
> Joerg, doesn't make any sense because it doesn't introduce any
> regression. It is correct.
>
> Opinions?

Currently you're trying to introduce information that is better
maintained automatically. We should really remove all CONFLICTS
except those that are really sensible (if they exist at all),
that is those that cannot be detected by pkg_add.


-- 
HE CE3OH...