Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 00:21:34 +0100 From: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: "portmanager -s" deletes ports? Message-ID: <20070531002134.244afb82@gumby.homeunix.com.> In-Reply-To: <98C46AC6-2999-48D0-AF1C-6BF29221BC20@cox.net> 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.> <98C46AC6-2999-48D0-AF1C-6BF29221BC20@cox.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 29 May 2007 21:08:23 -0700 Matthew Navarre <mnavarre@cox.net> wrote: > 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. When I noticed a serious bug in portmanager, I found the source of the problem and submitted a patch - I suggest you do the same. > 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. It doesn't process its arguments with getopt - so what? I trust you've volunteered your services to help polish it up, otherwise comments like "Broken by design" and "Lame" on someone else's hard work are likely to earn you the contempt you deserve.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070531002134.244afb82>