From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 21 10:20:55 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EF1816A41B for ; Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:20:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wmoran@collaborativefusion.com) Received: from mx00.pub.collaborativefusion.com (mx00.pub.collaborativefusion.com [206.210.89.199]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F12C813C459 for ; Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:20:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wmoran@collaborativefusion.com) Received: from working (c-71-60-127-199.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [71.60.127.199]) (AUTH: LOGIN wmoran, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by wingspan with esmtp; Sat, 21 Jul 2007 06:20:54 -0400 id 00056407.46A1DE06.000096A3 Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 06:20:53 -0400 From: Bill Moran To: Kent Stewart Message-Id: <20070721062053.91dd23bb.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> In-Reply-To: <200707201950.21868.kstewart@owt.com> References: <20070720085855.99fb2109.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> <20070720160749.54fec301.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> <20070721023933.GB24593@soaustin.net> <200707201950.21868.kstewart@owt.com> Organization: Collaborative Fusion Inc. X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.2 (GTK+ 2.10.12; i386-portbld-freebsd6.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Mark Linimon Subject: Re: Overly restrictive checks in the make process 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: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:20:55 -0000 Kent Stewart wrote: > > On Friday 20 July 2007, Mark Linimon wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 04:07:49PM -0400, Bill Moran wrote: > > > Even better would be for make to realize that it's only doing the > > > fetching, and do it anyway. > > > > That still doesn't help with the problem of a user who starts a 10MB > > download that won't work on his architecture or OS release. The code > > is all the same. This is the aggravation we are trying to prevent. > > That still doesn't address the concern or improve the system downtime > that a pkg_delete, make install allows. If you can't run something, you > don't have any downtime but to have to pkg_delete before you start the > tarball fetch can be really long on some ports. It's certainly a tradeoff. Either way you do it, there are practical scenarios where a user is inconvenienced. Perhaps an environmental override is the best route. NO_IGNORE=yes or something similar? -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc. wmoran@collaborativefusion.com Phone: 412-422-3463x4023