Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:50:29 +0000 From: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> To: Chris Rees <crees@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Recent ports removal Message-ID: <4EC2C285.7090601@infracaninophile.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <CADLo83-nOD=kP%2BUa5Z3ZcfW8LsHx=H0ZsAXCZrQjC5fsmOe3_Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <20111109124325.17efc0d1.stas@deglitch.com> <20111109222435.GD92221@azathoth.lan> <20111110110637.GA3514@hades.panopticon> <4EBCC587.10701@FreeBSD.org> <20111111100708.GA24126@hades.panopticon> <20111111124012.3ec48cb3.stas@deglitch.com> <20111111213817.GB8896@lonesome.com> <4EBD9E6F.3040708@delphij.net> <4EBDA077.5070105@FreeBSD.org> <4EC2B720.4000605@infracaninophile.co.uk> <4EC2BB2E.7060404@infracaninophile.co.uk> <CADLo83-nOD=kP%2BUa5Z3ZcfW8LsHx=H0ZsAXCZrQjC5fsmOe3_Q@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig3D0BC532F2203BDDBEBE684C
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 15/11/2011 19:25, Chris Rees wrote:
> On 15 November 2011 19:19, Matthew Seaman
> <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 15/11/2011 19:01, Matthew Seaman wrote:
>>> On 11/11/2011 22:23, Doug Barton wrote:
>>>>> By its
>>>>>> nature, deprecated ports tends not to be updated for long time, po=
rt
>>>>>> tools like portmaster, portupgrade will not even see it because no=
>>>>>> PORTREVISION bump happen.
>>>
>>>> portmaster -L will warn you about ports marked
>>>> DEPRECATED/FORBIDDEN/IGNORE/BROKEN if you run it against an updated
>>>> ports tree. One area where we actually can improve here is to also p=
ut
>>>> this information in the INDEX. I have an idea for that, just haven't=
>>>> been able to put the time into making it happen.
>>>
>>> How about something like the attached?
>>
>> Ooops. Wrong diff. Like this:
>=20
> Why have you included IGNOREd?
>=20
> Just curious....
A pedantic desire to cover all possibilities. It probably doesn't need
to be there, but my (admittedly cursory) reading of the code suggests
that by defining NO_IGNORE it could still be possible to build a pkg.
Cheers,
Matthew
--=20
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
JID: matthew@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW
--------------enig3D0BC532F2203BDDBEBE684C
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk7CwowACgkQ8Mjk52CukIyWZgCfZwSPvYL5m9K5YaPUBBdMC6Ht
nooAoINyaLKqlM7fVtVpufnbRY1EhGAV
=EuZW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------enig3D0BC532F2203BDDBEBE684C--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EC2C285.7090601>