From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 28 05:42:42 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C400C106568D; Fri, 28 Aug 2009 05:42:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from skip@menantico.com) Received: from vms173015pub.verizon.net (vms173015pub.verizon.net [206.46.173.15]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C444903F4; Thu, 27 Aug 2009 22:29:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx.menantico.com ([71.188.7.134]) by vms173015.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPA id <0KP200ACJ3SFE788@vms173015.mailsrvcs.net>; Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:29:07 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:32:16 -0400 From: Skip Ford To: Doug Barton Message-id: <20090827223216.GA969@menantico.com> References: <4A92F00E.1040705@FreeBSD.org> <20090825100052.9d963401.matheus@eternamente.info> <20090825185513.GA1046@menantico.com> <4A94651B.1030501@FreeBSD.org> <20090826025041.GA975@menantico.com> <4A959417.9000208@FreeBSD.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-disposition: inline In-reply-to: <4A959417.9000208@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Nenhum_de_Nos Subject: Re: portmaster not ask for port deletion X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 05:42:42 -0000 Doug Barton wrote: > Skip Ford wrote: > > Doug Barton wrote: > >> Second, without knowing what command line you used I couldn't tell you > >> for sure what happened of course, but assuming you used some > >> combination of '-af' what you saw was expected behavior. There is a > >> conflict (I think a fairly obvious one) between the -f option and > >> +IGNOREME. Since different users would have different ideas of how to > >> resolve that conflict, portmaster takes the safe path and asks you. > > > > Well, it wasn't immediately obvious to me that someone would ever want to > > mark a port ignore and then want to upgrade it. So, it just seemed like a > > silly question to me (and still does to be honest, unless that's the > > behavior of portupgrade you're trying to match.) > > I honestly don't know what portupgrade does in that situation. There > are at least 2 classes of users that I am trying to "protect" in this > case: > 1. Users who believe that -f should override +IGNOREME > 2. Users who create an +IGNOREME file for some reason, then forget > it's there. So, basically, portmaster stopped and asked for input because it thought I might've forgotten that I installed an +IGNOREME file 10 minutes prior. I'd prefer to not have tools that try to "think" about what I'm doing. It should do what I say it should do, not what it thinks I may have meant. Certainly, enough information was provided by me for portmaster to DTRT without causing any harm whatsoever if it didn't request input. Great script anyway though compared to the alternatives. -- Skip