Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 19:33:03 +0200 From: Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze@bsdforen.de> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: i keep *trying* to move from portupgrade to portmaster Message-ID: <4C64304F.2090802@bsdforen.de> In-Reply-To: <4C5C7DFF.8020400@FreeBSD.org> References: <AANLkTinBJo0M-5fL=ATeY0KXnjA3O-7=TOLMF0X6dzdC@mail.gmail.com> <4C5BC280.1070805@FreeBSD.org> <AANLkTinfXC%2B4J-ZVyUShqKNS3AgpXgwDtnMjVx=iSo9K@mail.gmail.com> <4C5BF352.5050004@dataix.net> <4C5C7DFF.8020400@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 06/08/2010 23:26, Doug Barton wrote: > On 08/06/2010 04:34, jhell wrote: > >> Do not prompt for a backup package creation failure > > I need to add an option for this, but it will likely be an "expert" > option that you can set in the rc file. The theory is that package > creation failure should be a rare thing, and since portmaster has no way > to know what packages are really critical to any given system it treats > inability to safely recover from an upgrade failure as a critical error. > However, having the ability to disable this is an oft-requested feature, > I just haven't gotten to it yet. Maybe you could treat pkg_create's return value 2 special, that's what pkg_upgrade does. Return value 2 means that creating a backup was successful, but incomplete because of missing files. All the more reason to replace the package in my opinion. It's the most common case and it has no influence on portmaster's ability to return the original state if something goes wrong, so there's really no need to treat it differently from return value 0. -- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C64304F.2090802>