Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 16:21:31 -0800 From: "Bruce A. Mah" <bmah@FreeBSD.ORG> To: "Leif Neland" <leif@neland.dk> Cc: "Nik Clayton" <nik@FreeBSD.ORG>, "Michael C . Wu" <keichii@peorth.iteration.net>, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: pkg_update Message-ID: <200102100021.f1A0LVS25017@bmah-freebsd-0.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <00c501c092ec$678e73a0$0e00a8c0@neland.dk> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0102080152030.58657-100000@arnold.neland.dk> <20010207202335.C20454@peorth.iteration.net> <20010208232645.A86390@canyon.nothing-going-on.org> <00c501c092ec$678e73a0$0e00a8c0@neland.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] [moved to -ports] If memory serves me right, "Leif Neland" wrote: > Couldn't it be made possible to use just the update-of-dependencies part of p > kg_update without doing the pkg_delete/pkg_install bit? > > Perhaps I'll try... Manipulating the bits is relatively straightforward. Doing so in a meaningful way, and being able to cover all the edge cases, that's quite hard (as I've just re-learned). If you browse through the archives of -ports for the last few days, you'll get an idea of some of the problems. Every few months, the topic comes up, and discussion is just tapering off from the last round. Not to say you shouldn't work on this problem...just saying that it's not quite as straightforward as most people (myself included) think when they first tackle it. Cheers, Bruce. [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 iD8DBQE6hImK2MoxcVugUsMRAvR/AKDqAOfVNhWx0jVbTN6TnPDV+9ArXgCdG9cv RlvxBKFAHu+6wDRizamoiDo= =qSgS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200102100021.f1A0LVS25017>