Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:00:32 +0200 From: "[LoN]Kamikaze" <LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: make update broken Message-ID: <467030C0.9020508@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <20070613173159.GK90672@droso.net> References: <466279CC.8030200@gmx.de> <4663D0B9.4000602@FreeBSD.org> <46701E0B.6010804@gmx.de> <46701FAD.7020204@FreeBSD.org> <20070613173159.GK90672@droso.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Erwin Lansing wrote: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 06:47:41PM +0200, Alex Dupre wrote: >> [LoN]Kamikaze wrote: >>> It still seems not to be fixed and I cannot find the PR either. Can you give me >>> the number? >> I didn't open a PR, I contacted directly who proposed/committed that >> change and portmgr. But after a couple of mail exchanges nobody took a >> final decision (i.e. I'm still waiting a reply or an action). >> > As I described earlier, SUP_UPDATE, CVS_UPDATE and PORTSNAP_UPDATE are > mutually exclusive and cannot be used at the same time. That it worked > before was an artifact which has been fixed. That is doesn't work > anymore means the designed behaviour finally has been fixed and not > broken :-) So you cannot maintain /usr/src if you wish to use portsnap for /usr/ports? The intended behaviour is stupid. I would prefer a fall back to portsnap if PORTSSUPFILE is not provided.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?467030C0.9020508>