Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:46:38 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net> Cc: pav@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: purely package-based/oriented solution Message-ID: <48102CCE.6020004@icyb.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <20080424080229.114632lxyo7mbi4g@webmail.leidinger.net> References: <480E3F5E.3060501@icyb.net.ua> <1208903822.1548.62.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> <480F3B39.3090702@icyb.net.ua> <1208957957.58820.28.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> <20080424080229.114632lxyo7mbi4g@webmail.leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 24/04/2008 09:02 Alexander Leidinger said the following: > Quoting Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org> (from Wed, 23 Apr 2008 > 15:39:17 +0200): > >> Andriy Gapon píše v st 23. 04. 2008 v 16:35 +0300: > >>> BTW, strange thing: >>> $ portupgrade -a -PP >>> ... >>> ** Port marked as IGNORE: devel/linux_kdump: >>> does not build with the default linux base, use the package instead >>> >>> What's this about? :-) I do say to use packages only. >> Guess portupgrade still looks at the ports tree. What happens if you try >> to rm -rf /usr/ports first? > > If someone knows a better way of handling this (using something else > than IGNORE, with the same effect to people trying to build it from > ports but with a better behavior when used with portupgrade -PP), I'am > all ears (a better way of fixing this would be to include preparsed > linux stuff, but there are more important things on my TODO list...). Alexander, I am not completely sure what your question was. My concern is: why on -PP mode portupgrade needs ports at all? Why not just go to package repository and check what you've got there. I do not demand that portupgrade be tailored to my needs, I am just saying that it doesn't meet them. ... maybe if I rename it to pkgupgrade :-) -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?48102CCE.6020004>