Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:05:21 -0400 From: Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Keeping track of automatically installed dependency-only ports Message-ID: <18033.12033.969102.280191@jerusalem.litteratus.org> In-Reply-To: <20070614075418.GA8093@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> References: <20070614070602.GD39533@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <200706140714.l5E7EK0U023767@smtpclu-1.eunet.yu> <20070614075418.GA8093@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jeremie Le Hen writes: > My request is more subtle, I think. <example deleted> To quote the old television show: "Insufficient data, Captain." I don't recall _any_ piece of port management software recording, or even understanding, the difference between a port "installed automatically" and one "installed manually". (Could be wrong here.) If this is so, then one /might/ be able write code to track this ... somehow. My off-the-cuff analysis is any solution will involve a) manual intervention while manually installing ports and/or b) increased complexity in the code. In view of the recent thread (on current@ ??) in which many people were willing to trade /decreased/ complexity for faster execution time, I'd say you have a long way to go before this gets committed. (A carefully considered exposition of what the problem is, why it's a problem for many people, and how a proposed solution might work, submitted here, would be a good start.) Robet Huff
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?18033.12033.969102.280191>