From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 8 17:35:56 2009 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 6A1431065670 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 2009 17:35:56 +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 ESMTP id B55EF8FC1E for ; Tue, 8 Sep 2009 17:35:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 6972 invoked by uid 399); 8 Sep 2009 17:35:48 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?10.9.1.128?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 8 Sep 2009 17:35:48 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <4AA695F3.2070702@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:35:47 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> References: <4A89CB20.3000408@quip.cz> <4A8E2121.6040507@FreeBSD.org> <4A8E8ACA.3060705@quip.cz> <4A8EF583.8090806@FreeBSD.org> <4A9966FE.7060509@quip.cz> <4A998242.80005@FreeBSD.org> <4A999B4A.3000603@quip.cz> <4A9ADAE6.70506@quip.cz> <4AA56AA3.1000100@quip.cz> <4AA57931.6080208@FreeBSD.org> <4AA59493.60509@quip.cz> In-Reply-To: <4AA59493.60509@quip.cz> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 OpenPGP: id=D5B2F0FB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portmaster is not always recursive 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, 08 Sep 2009 17:35:56 -0000 Miroslav Lachman wrote: > And now I have one problem on topic with recursive update. > > There were about 50 available updates, but I want to update just p5 > modules for Amavis / SpamAssassin. In this case -a + -i is not so useful > option nor +IGNOREME. There was already a discussion earlier in this thread about the -t option which I think would have done the job for you here. You could also have done 'portmaster -i p5' which should also have done it with a minimum of fuss. > All in all, portmaster is the best ports management tool for me and this > minor problems I have will not change it :) Thank you again for the kind words. :) Doug