Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 22:14:53 -0700 From: Roop Nanuwa <roop.nanuwa@gmail.com> To: "Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH" <allbery@ece.cmu.edu> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: portupgrade-20040529 Message-ID: <75f3f70504062922141aa61b5e@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1088569502.83913.35.camel@rushlight.kf8nh.com> References: <75f3f70504062921126b075a65@mail.gmail.com> <1088569502.83913.35.camel@rushlight.kf8nh.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 00:25:03 -0400, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH <allbery@ece.cmu.edu> wrote: > > Actually, it looks to me like portinstall/portupgrade just issues a > "make install" for the highest level dependency it can and lets the > usual bsd.ports.mk port dependency stuff do all the work, so it doesn't > have control over what happens in between those builds. I suspect > changing that would require making portinstall/portupgrade a lot smarter > (and then potentially having to update them every time bsd.ports.mk > changes, since it can no longer let bsd.ports.mk do the heavy lifting). I was worried that would be the case. I looked over the feature set and there was a line about how the portupgrade tools can follow dependency trees so I thought there might be a chance it did handle things a bit "smarter". --roop
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?75f3f70504062922141aa61b5e>