From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 25 22:38:12 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EF571065671 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:38:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D72868FC18 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:38:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 32206 invoked by uid 399); 25 Mar 2008 22:44:14 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.5?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTP; 25 Mar 2008 22:44:14 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 Message-ID: <47E97ED2.60206@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:38:10 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lars Stokholm References: <47E9487D.6000909@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <47E9487D.6000909@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Behavior of portmaster -e X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:38:12 -0000 Lars Stokholm wrote: > First of all, I love portmaster. :) Thanks. :) > Second, I did a "portmaster -e docbook-*" and since it finished > successfully, I expected it had deleted all of my docbook ports, but it > hadn't. From what I could see it had just deleted the first match. > > Shouldn't it delete all docbook-* ports? If not, shouldn't it fail, > instead of just deleting the first match? A long time ago a user proposed that portmaster support globbing for names in /var/db/pkg, and the user that suggested it thought that the way it should work is one port at a time. Since I didn't have any strong feelings about that, I went with their suggestion. However, as time goes on it has become increasingly obvious that most users expect anything with a * at the end to match _all_ ports that match the pattern, not just one. In order to support that I will have to rework the parser a bit, which I don't have time for right at the moment, but should be able to get to soon. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection