Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 11:44:33 -0600 From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) To: Aluminium Oxide <orac000@internet-mail.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: portsupgrade cvsup refuse file aware? Message-ID: <20060311174433.GB10679@soaustin.net> In-Reply-To: <1142079054.9555.256373197@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1142054372.14978.256358031@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20060311060002.GA40638@xor.obsecurity.org> <1142079054.9555.256373197@webmail.messagingengine.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 10:40:54PM +1030, Aluminium Oxide wrote: > > > How much better would it be, if pkgdb had a flag to permit the parsing > > > of the refuse file, and honouring the ports tree resulting from cvsup as > > > produced by it? > > > > > > Can we do this? > > > >Not really, this has been discussed many times. > > > > Kris > > Why not? Executive Summary: partial ports trees don't work. Longer Summary: until and unless we (portmgr) wants to enforce a new rule that limits inter-category ports dependencies, there is no way to know which category is a "leaf category" and thus may be safely trimmed, and thus will be able to make a consistent INDEX. Trying to deal with people who have failed to create INDEX is an ongoing, frustrating, and ultimately useless task, and it's much easier just to tell everybody to have complete ports trees. The last *three* times I have asked for a show of hands, "who wants a new enforceable portmgr policy to restrict dependencies in certain categories", I have received a deafening silence (no replies at all). Yes, this topic has been discussed at least three times. As kris hinted, see the archives. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060311174433.GB10679>