From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 15 03:26:19 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDCF182C for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 03:26:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sdb@ssr.com) Received: from mailhost.ssr.com (mailhost.ssr.com [199.4.235.5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 903712B7C for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 03:26:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 15867 invoked from network); 15 Oct 2013 04:18:33 -0000 Received: from pool-71-167-229-74.nycmny.east.verizon.net (HELO irelay.ssr.com) (sdb@71.167.229.74) by 199.4.235.5 with SMTP; 15 Oct 2013 04:18:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 60701 invoked by uid 103); 15 Oct 2013 02:49:52 -0000 Date: 15 Oct 2013 02:49:52 -0000 Message-ID: <20131015024952.60700.qmail@irelay.ssr.com> From: Scott Ballantyne To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-reply-to: (message from Warren Block on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 19:51:04 -0600 (MDT)) Subject: Re: Advice sought on Portmaster -Faf and deleted ports References: <20131013200236.7874.qmail@irelay.ssr.com> <20131014174833.58154.qmail@irelay.ssr.com> <20131014233539.56016.qmail@irelay.ssr.com> X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 03:26:19 -0000 On Mon 14 Oct 2013 Warren Block wrote: > On Mon, 14 Oct 2013, Scott Ballantyne wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 14 oct 2013, Warren Block wrote: > >> On Mon, 14 Oct 2013, Scott Ballantyne wrote: > >> > > > > Actually, the last time I updated my ports was when I installed 9.0, > > and I used the portmaster 'nuke all ports' method I was trying to > > day. Since then, several dozen ports of been 'deleted' or 'renamed', > > not just the linux_base-fc4. Seems in the case of ports which have > > been renamed or replaced, this could in fact be simply automated in > > most cases. > > I think it does handle renamed ports. Whether the ones it does not > handle are due to missing functionality or because they are difficult or > impossible to handle, don't know. Such was not my experience, Warren. And actually, a google search while I was trying to solve this turned up many reports of the same problem over the past years.