On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Julio M. Merino Vidal 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...)

That sounds like a good idea.

Frederick