From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 27 09:55:01 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 871371065673 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:55:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from daniel@roe.ch) Received: from hobbes.roe.ch (hobbes.roe.ch [213.144.141.27]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 421168FC38 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:55:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from daniel@roe.ch) Received: from roe by hobbes.roe.ch (envelope-from ) with LOCAL id 1JeoX9-0006wq-00 for freebsd-ports@freebsd.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:36:31 +0100 Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:36:31 +0100 From: Daniel Roethlisberger To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20080327093631.GB21592@hobbes.roe.ch> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <20080325212146.GA32955@copernic.kti.ae.poznan.pl> <47E97F0F.10900@FreeBSD.org> <20080326085035.GA1756@copernic.kti.ae.poznan.pl> <47EACD31.2070803@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47EACD31.2070803@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Subject: Re: portmaster and BROKEN ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:55:01 -0000 Doug Barton 2008-03-26: > Willy Picard wrote: > >portupgrade simply ignores BROKEN ports during a "portupgrade -a". I > >am not even asking about a similar behaviour for portmaster. I wanted > >just to ask if an option allows to do the same. If no such an option > >exists, I think that its addition to the functionality of portmaster > >may be worth considering. > > I think it's important for users to know when their ports go into a > BROKEN state, so ignoring them is not an option. If a user actually > wants to ignore a port that is BROKEN, the +IGNOREME mechanism is > available, as you pointed out. Of course the user wants to be notified of all ports which cannot be upgraded for some reason (broken, marked BROKEN, removed/missing origin, etc.), but forcing the upgrade to abort because of a problem with a single port does not make sense. It means that portmaster can only be run successfully if all the installed ports are in a 100% upgradable state, which in my experience is basically almost never, except on production servers with only a few well-maintained ports installed. To keep a box current with portmaster, I have to manually mark each of the non-upgradable ports with +IGNOREME files after portmaster bails out, and restart portmaster. I will then have to periodically check back manually whether the problems went away in the meantime. This is unacceptable for me; too much manual intervention. I would very much prefer to have an option that tells portmaster to skip non-upgradable ports and those that depend on them, and notify me in form of a concise, greppable list after the portmaster run. This is actually the number one reason I switched back to portupgrade. Other than that, portmaster would be the tool of my choice. -Dan -- Daniel Roethlisberger