From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 9 18:08:45 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26D8B1065670 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 18:08:45 +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 B2F858FC12 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 18:08:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 26609 invoked by uid 399); 9 Nov 2009 18:08:44 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO foreign.dougb.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 9 Nov 2009 18:08:44 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <4AF85AAB.2050305@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:08:43 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090822) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "b. f." References: <4AF7CBE1.70704@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 OpenPGP: id=D5B2F0FB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: math/py-numpy vs. math/atlas-devel X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:08:45 -0000 b. f. wrote: > 1) +IGNOREME files only work with installed ports (just because the > package database is naturally associated with installed ports doesn't > mean that someone won't create an +IGNOREME for one that isn't > installed), and > 2) when trying to prevent the build or installation of a port that is > not currently installed, the exclusion glob will be compared with the > port directory, rather than the PKGNAME, as is done for installed > packages. I've updated my working copy of the man page with these suggestions, thanks! > And with regard to the selection of exclusion > globs, we should note that a glob that matches too many ports may be > as problematic as one that matches too few. But, of course. :) Regexp creation is both one of the rites of passage for all system administrators and a never-ending journey. If the -x or other glob option is not suitable there are always other options. Doug -- Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/