Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 02:37:19 -0800 (PST) From: Anton Shterenlikht <mexas@bris.ac.uk> To: mexas@bris.ac.uk, woodsb02@gmail.com Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org Subject: Re: official amd64 pkg repo: need to rebuild paraview for png-1.6.16 Message-ID: <201501081037.t08AbICF010451@mech-as221.men.bris.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <CAOc73CB2hpM%2BOa8T=WAo=32-b6a=CBd8V06=xKE6z3KPJHMYEA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>From woodsb02@gmail.com Thu Jan 8 10:30:49 2015 > >The port revision was bumped on Christmas Day for the png version update. >However new packages are not available as the paraview port fails to build. > >It was marked as broken on 19th December: >http://www.freshports.org/science/paraview As I mentioned in another post, this is a situation that pkgng was promised to detect and avoid. The correct course of action is to warn the user that after "pkg upgrade" some installed packages will no longer work. The whole point of pkgng is increased trust. If I have to manually check before each pkg upgrade what will happen to all my installed packages, then what is the point of a sophisticated tool like pkgng. Or, if I have to manually roll back the ports tree selectively and rebuild old versions of problem ports, like png in this example, then again, what is the point of pkgng. I don't want to sound too critical. Up to now I've been very happy with pkg capabilities. I'm just surprised at today's behaviour. Anton
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201501081037.t08AbICF010451>