Re: postgresql packages, PG_SUBPREFIX and CONFLICTS

[Aleksey Cheusov <cheusov%tut.by@localhost>]

On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger
<joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost> wrote:
> Most of those conflicts are completely harmless.

Harmless? Explain please. This word means nothing in a context
of our discussion.

> Others of your so called bugs only don't show up in the bulk builds
> because they depend on broken packages anyway.

This list was generated based on binary packages.
But this is a separate question.

> You have given no convincing argument AT ALL so far.

I can say absolutely the same about your arguing. Are you surprised?

>> As for automatic CONFLICTS generation. The only thing you can do in
>> bulk build tools is to generate CONFLICTS-foo.x.y.z entries, neither
>> -[0-9]* nor <=x.y.z. This approach is better than nothing but 1) cannot
>> solve problems with binary upgrades in general 2) doesn't allow to fix
>> bugs in pkgsrc, see above.
>
> Neither pattern style works well. History *has* proven exactly that.
> Your changes fail a simple maintainability check.

You skipped the most important part of my email. I'll repeat it.
CONFLICTS generated automatically cannot *replace* manual CONFLICTS
but can be viewed as a useful *addon*.