From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 30 05:01:40 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FC1B16A421 for ; Wed, 30 May 2007 05:01:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mnavarre@cox.net) Received: from fed1rmmtai105.cox.net (fed1rmmtai105.cox.net [68.230.241.55]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4117813C483 for ; Wed, 30 May 2007 05:01:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mnavarre@cox.net) Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao101.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.05.02.00 201-2174-114-20060621) with ESMTP id <20070530040826.BVAW13995.fed1rmmtao101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net>; Wed, 30 May 2007 00:08:26 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.14] ([72.207.96.151]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id 5G8R1X00t3FxtNG0000000; Wed, 30 May 2007 00:08:26 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070523181943.1a97605c@gumby.homeunix.com.> References: <46529E35.7080401@ant.uni-bremen.de> <20070523031505.3071bc9b@gumby.homeunix.com.> <4653F303.2000302@ant.uni-bremen.de> <20070524002531.3cd65668@localhost> <20070523181943.1a97605c@gumby.homeunix.com.> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <98C46AC6-2999-48D0-AF1C-6BF29221BC20@cox.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Matthew Navarre Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 21:08:23 -0700 To: RW X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: "portmanager -s" deletes ports? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 05:01:40 -0000 On May 23, 2007, at 10:19 AM, RW wrote: > On Thu, 24 May 2007 00:25:31 +1000 > Norberto Meijome wrote: > >> On Wed, 23 May 2007 09:53:39 +0200 >> Heinrich Rebehn wrote: >> >>> This is weird! A program that is supposed to show the *status* of >>> installed ports should never arbitrarily *remove* ports. >> >> I agree that is not clear why it is removing ports without warning. > > Well, we don't actually know that. I suspect that there was a > warning, It shouldn't be removing *anything* without user confirmation. any other behavior is Broken and Wrong. Warnings are irrelevant if you just go ahead and do the dangerous thing you were warning about anyway. > but it went to stdout and was eaten by "|grep OLD". Portmanger then > waited for a y/n response for 5 minutes, and went with the default of > deleting the port. From the portmanager(1) man page: -s or --status status of installed ports Says *nothing* about even the possibility of removing installed ports. Just status. If -s is removing installed ports which have been moved/removed from the ports tree without confirmation then it's broken, plain and simple. portmanager also has -s -l *AND* -sl options^Wcommands. -sl has not a thing to do with -s or -l. Broken by design. -sl should by convention be equivalent to -s -l, instead -sl maps to --show-leaves while -s maps to --status and --l maps to log. Lame. And there's no difference between 'switches' (options) and commands (imperatives). > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions- > unsubscribe@freebsd.org"