Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:58:24 -0700 (PDT) From: "Freddie Cash" <fcash@ocis.net> To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Portupgrade -af question Message-ID: <64390.142.24.184.159.1098910704.squirrel@142.24.184.159> In-Reply-To: <BAY2-DAV9tPGtPrPrvC000146aa@hotmail.com> References: <BAY2-DAV3ExvWvqzAoa0000c9e7@hotmail.com> <20041027173212.GA59754@xor.obsecurity.org> <20041027190416.GA70873@ei.bzerk.org> <BAY2-DAV9tPGtPrPrvC000146aa@hotmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>> On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 10:26:49AM -0700, Zoltan Frombach wrote: >> Yes. Wouldn't it be a nice feature for "portupgrade -P" to install >> the port instead of the package if any non-defaults were defined in >> pkgtools.conf? >> (I guess now's the time for me to learn some ruby) > If you really want to add this to portupgrade, it should be optional, > though. Because someone might have a broken compiler or something and > just wants to install a binary package quickly. In that case it > should be possible to force a binary package installation regardless > of what's inside the pkgtools.conf file. Don't you agree? This is already in portupgrade. :) "portupgrade -PP" will force it to install a package only. If there is no package availble, then nothing gets installed. -- Freddie Cash, CCNT CCLP Helpdesk / Network Support Tech. School District 73 (250) 377-HELP [377-4357] fcash@sd73.bc.ca helpdesk@sd73.bc.ca
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?64390.142.24.184.159.1098910704.squirrel>