Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:15:31 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Zoltan Frombach <tssajo@hotmail.com> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: Portupgrade -af question Message-ID: <20041027211531.GC59489@dragon.nuxi.com> 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 12:34:51PM -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? > > 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? 'portupgrade -PP' can still be used for that. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041027211531.GC59489>