Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 16:50:24 -0800 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: pav@freebsd.org, freebsd ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: New /bin/sh based script to manage ports Message-ID: <43C99C50.6060608@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <43C97BEB.3030601@FreeBSD.org> References: <43BCF31F.8050900@FreeBSD.org> <1136501778.40648.17.camel@localhost> <43C38A38.1020408@FreeBSD.org> <1136893017.2410.9.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> <43C8E446.5010603@FreeBSD.org> <20060114144016.1dc9fdd0@Magellan.Leidinger.net> <43C97BEB.3030601@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Doug Barton wrote:
> the more I think about it the more I
> think it makes sense to do it in this order for the 'update all' case:
>
> 1. ports that have no dependencies (roots)
> 2. ports that have dependencies, and are depended on (branches?)
> 3. ports that have dependencies, and are not depended on (leaves)
Turns out I was missing one category. After roots there needs to be a
category for ports that have no dependencies themselves, but are depended
on. I am calling them 'trunks' to torture the tree analogy even further. :)
I just uploaded a new version of portmaster that has this implemented for
the "update all" case. Thanks again for this suggestion, I think it's a good
one.
BTW, where the typical case of updating or installing a single port is
concerned, going from the top down is the right thing to do, since
dependencies will vary depending on OPTIONS chosen. However, for the case of
updating all the ports that are already installed, your suggestion is a
welcome optimization.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43C99C50.6060608>