Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 13:15:59 +0200 From: Heinrich Rebehn <rebehn@ant.uni-bremen.de> To: Norberto Meijome <freebsd@meijome.net> Cc: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: "portmanager -s" deletes ports? Message-ID: <465573EF.50402@ant.uni-bremen.de> In-Reply-To: <20070524002531.3cd65668@localhost> References: <46529E35.7080401@ant.uni-bremen.de> <20070523031505.3071bc9b@gumby.homeunix.com.> <4653F303.2000302@ant.uni-bremen.de> <20070524002531.3cd65668@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Norberto Meijome wrote: > On Wed, 23 May 2007 09:53:39 +0200 > Heinrich Rebehn <rebehn@ant.uni-bremen.de> 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. > >> I consider this >> a severe bug. Luckily, this was on a server system where X11 is not >> crucial. I really don't want to imagine the hassle i would have had if >> portmanager had removed exim or apache or samba or ... > > I think the chances of that ever happening are pretty low - do you think any of > them would get removed from ports? The fact that xorg-manpages was being > orphaned is clearly documented in kris@ entry in ports/UPDATING. > > the solution is simple, dont use that tool , at least in the form you are using > it. > Program has a bug --> don't use it. Strange logic, but at least easier then filing a bug report ;-) --Heinrich
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?465573EF.50402>