#27588: users are not aware that xz-devel is outdated and they should replace it by xz ----------------------------------+----------------------------------------- Reporter: vinc17@… | Owner: afb@… Type: defect | Status: closed Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: ports | Version: Resolution: fixed | Keywords: Port: xz xz-devel | ----------------------------------+----------------------------------------- Comment(by afb@…):
so adding explicit conflicts is somewhat redundant
Adding explicit conflicts is absolutely necessary; it prevents a user from wasting time building a port if it won't be able to activate anyway due to conflicting files.
Well, it does activate if the new/stable one is deactivated.
especially if they already have implicit file conflicts.
Which implicit file conflicts are you talking about?
Your "conflicting files", above. As in they both install bin/xz
But it's a pretty strange way to version things, either way.
What is?
Separating two versions of a piece of software by changing name. Upgrading from 4.999.9beta to 5.0.0 is more of a "version" thing ? So ports systems are pretty strange, that way. Not everything is. I have no idea how the new xz-devel works, so I'll unmaintain it. -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/27588#comment:7> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for Mac OS