On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:57:11 +0200
"Julio M. Merino Vidal" <jmmv@menta.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 05:19:54 -0400
> Dan McMahill <dmcmahill@NetBSD.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 13:19:04 +0200 (MEST)
> > Hubert Feyrer <hubert.feyrer@informatik.fh-regensburg.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > graphics/transcode:     build broken	1    	(jmmv,
> > > tech-pkg@NetBSD.org)
> > 
> > This is because two conflicting packages are in the flattened
> > dependencies for this package.  Both nasm and nasm-devel are
> > depended upon and they conflict with each other.
> 
> Why do we keep two different versions of nasm?  I have hit the problem
> you describe lots of times when building packages without the bulk
> build infrastructure. Couldn't we simply have nasm, updated to
> nasm-devel's version?  I only have the later installed and haven't
> seen problems so far.  And it is more complete (all rdf utilities,
> info documentation, html manual...)

no idea.  I'm neither a nasm user nor a transcode user.  I just noted
what the build problem was.

-Dan

--