Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 10 Jun 2012 16:36:01 -0500
From:      Bryan Drewery <bryan@shatow.net>
To:        Adam Strohl <adams-freebsd@ateamsystems.com>
Cc:        freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Retro-actively adjust port's deinstall operations?
Message-ID:  <4FD51341.1080104@shatow.net>
In-Reply-To: <4FD51278.10109@ateamsystems.com>
References:  <4FD50115.1070904@ateamsystems.com> <CADLo83_mS-dncCPLKr8D_vc1gKUW87Ue0kpHJNFkW0Eb2hYFJw@mail.gmail.com> <4FD51147.3040004@ateamsystems.com> <4FD511F0.50607@shatow.net> <4FD51278.10109@ateamsystems.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6/10/2012 4:32 PM, Adam Strohl wrote:
> On 6/11/2012 4:30, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>> On 6/10/2012 4:27 PM, Adam Strohl wrote:
>>> Where/when would this trigger?
>>
>> This could block the upgrade as soon as they try to build it if they
>> already have the ini and do not have a sample file.
> 
> The issue is that most things (ie; people or portupgrade) do a deinstall
> first, then a reinstall.  By the time the Makefile gets called for
> reinstall its too late and in my testing everything is ignored for
> deinstall because it uses the package's archived actions.
> 
> Or would this somehow hook on make deinstall too?

portupgrade builds the port first, then deinstalls and installs.

So I think crees' suggestion will work.

Not sure about portmaster, but I imagine it would do the same, as it
could take *hours* to build and you would be left without the port in
the meantime.

Regards,
Bryan Drewery




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FD51341.1080104>