On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 20:52:13 +0200, Theo Buehler wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 30, 2025 at 08:43:45PM +0200, Pascal Stumpf wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 20:38:09 +0200, Theo Buehler wrote:
> > > In my ongoing bulk, eterm hit the conflict in devel/libast:
> > 
> > Seems like I forgot this part of the puzzle.
> > 
> > > Can't install libast-0.7p12 because of conflicts (ksh93-1.0.10p0v0)
> > > 
> > > This works for me.
> > > 
> > > Index: Makefile
> > > ===================================================================
> > > RCS file: /cvs/ports/devel/libast/Makefile,v
> > > diff -u -p -r1.28 Makefile
> > > --- Makefile	21 Jul 2025 15:31:49 -0000	1.28
> > > +++ Makefile	30 Aug 2025 18:16:55 -0000
> > > @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ COMMENT=		library of assorted spiffy thi
> > >  
> > >  DISTNAME=		libast-0.7
> > >  PKGNAME=		${DISTNAME}
> > > -REVISION =		12
> > > +REVISION =		13
> > >  SHARED_LIBS +=	ast                  3.0      # .2.1
> > >  CATEGORIES=		devel
> > >  
> > > Index: pkg/PLIST
> > > ===================================================================
> > > RCS file: /cvs/ports/devel/libast/pkg/PLIST,v
> > > diff -u -p -r1.6 PLIST
> > > --- pkg/PLIST	28 Feb 2023 10:13:04 -0000	1.6
> > > +++ pkg/PLIST	30 Aug 2025 18:24:07 -0000
> > > @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
> > > -@conflict ksh93-*
> > > +@conflict ksh93-<1.0.10p0v0
> > > +@conflict ksh93-libshell-*
> > 
> > This is supposed to be "@conflict libshell-*", no?
> 
> I'm not sure. That's why I ask :)
> 
> Per packages-specs(7) a conflict takes a pkgpath, which according to
> pkgpath(7) is of the form 'some/directory[-sub][,flavor...]', so I
> thought the ksh93 bit is needed.

Hmm, no.  Per pkg_create(1), a @conflict takes a pkgspec, which per
packages-specs(7) consists of stem-version[-flavor], which in this case
is "libshell-$V" aka PKGNAME.

The pkgpath in this case would be shells/ksh93,-libshell.

> > >  bin/libast-config
> > >  include/libast/
> > >  include/libast.h