Re: Strange CONFLICTS definitions render pkgin full-upgrade impossible

["Aleksej Lebedev" <root%zta.lk@localhost>]

On Fri, May 21, 2021, at 12:50, Jonathan Perkin wrote:
> * On 2021-05-21 at 11:41 BST, Aleksej Lebedev wrote:
> 
> >A agree that it's correct in the sense that it reports the conflict that is declared by the package.
> >However, wouldn't it be nice if pkgin detected (and reported as a warning) the conflicts that are there clearly by mistake.
> 
> No, the CONFLICT is completely wrong.  It's not pkgin's job to add 
> special cases and more logic to what is already a complex codebase to 
> begin with.
> 
> >I think it's simply not user-friendly to produce errors like this and not giving the user to ignore the non-existing problem.
> 
> It's very important in situations like this to just fix the root of the 
> problem, not add complexity and workarounds to everything else to make 
> the wrongness more palatable.
> 
> It's not a non-existing problem.  It's a bug.  We should just fix it.

Your point is clear. Just one last though. It is a bug. I wanted to fix it but I couldn't understand the root cause until I looked at the source code of pkgin - only then I realized the problem is in the package itself.
A better message from pkgin would save a few hours of my time.
As for allowing users to ignore the incorrect conflict - that's debatable, I agree.

--
Aleksej Lebedev

> 
> -- 
> Jonathan Perkin  -  Joyent, Inc.  -  www.joyent.com
>