Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 00:18:15 -0400 From: Glen Barber <glen.j.barber@gmail.com> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports UPDATING Message-ID: <4E0D4A87.3060901@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4E0D3D59.40800@FreeBSD.org> References: <201106302103.p5UL3heP028971@repoman.freebsd.org> <4E0D3D59.40800@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6/30/11 11:22 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > This is not the first time this issue (ports doing the wrong thing if > you try to build them while they are installed) has come up, and I've > been thinking ... do we need something like a NO_REINSTALL flag that can > be added to a port's Makefile to indicate the problem? I realize that in > many cases the problem is better solved by fixing the real problem. > However I think that there are likely situations like this where there > is a legitimate problem that can only be overcome by removing the > installed ports first. > I think it would be nice to have a "I_KNOW_I_HAVE_THIS_PORT_INSTALLED_ALREADY_BUT_UPGRADE_IT_ANYWAY" flag for situations that seem to be what caused this reply, unless I misunderstand the cause of the UPDATING entry. In either case, see below. More specifically, I think it would be nice if 'PACKAGE_SITE=$mylocaltinderbox pkg_add <somepackage>' didn't complain that I already have a prerequisite packages, though lesser-versioned that is required for <somepackage> installed currently, while failing to upgrade the prerequisite package when I know it's necessary for the <somepackage> upgrade. Maybe I've missed various flags in various manual pages - I would be thrilled to be proven that this is the case. -- Glen Barber
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E0D4A87.3060901>