From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 28 06:05:19 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD0C11065672; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 06:05:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from skip@menantico.com) Received: from vms173007pub.verizon.net (vms173007pub.verizon.net [206.46.173.7]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 949DC90462; Thu, 27 Aug 2009 22:36:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx.menantico.com ([71.188.7.134]) by vms173007.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPA id <0KP2000IO43PBMX1@vms173007.mailsrvcs.net>; Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:35:53 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:39:02 -0400 From: Skip Ford To: Kevin Oberman Message-id: <20090827223902.GB969@menantico.com> References: <4A959417.9000208@FreeBSD.org> <20090826222815.7DA1F1CC09@ptavv.es.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-disposition: inline In-reply-to: <20090826222815.7DA1F1CC09@ptavv.es.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: Doug Barton , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Nenhum_de_Nos Subject: Re: portmaster not ask for port deletion X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 06:05:19 -0000 Kevin Oberman wrote: > > Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:59:19 -0700 > > From: Doug Barton > > Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org > > > > Skip Ford wrote: > > > > > > Well, it wasn't immediately obvious to me that someone would ever want to > > > mark a port ignore and then want to upgrade it. So, it just seemed like a > > > silly question to me (and still does to be honest, unless that's the > > > behavior of portupgrade you're trying to match.) > > > > I honestly don't know what portupgrade does in that situation. There > > are at least 2 classes of users that I am trying to "protect" in this > > case: > > 1. Users who believe that -f should override +IGNOREME > > 2. Users who create an +IGNOREME file for some reason, then forget > > it's there. > > portupgrade does the same thing except that you "hold" them instead of > ignoring them. I believe that this is the correct way. I have ports > (e.g. openoffice.org) that take a VERY long time to build or that are > run in production out of a crontab (rancid). I don't want to > inadvertently update these with the '-a' option. (Especially th latter > case.) When I really, really want to do them, I use '-f'. > > I think of '-f' as "YES, I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY want to update this > port now and I expect you to believe me". I don't really have a problem with portmaster asking to build +IGNOREME ports, especially if that's how portupgrade works. But, according to the man page, portmaster asks to upgrade IGNOREME ports whenever '-a' is present. That still just seems wrong to me, and that's what bit me (holding up my build for a few hours is all.) It's been years since I used portupgrade, but I thought I remembered that +IGNOREME was designed just for that purpose: to have portupgrade automatically skip certain ports when it was invoked with '-a'. -- Skip