From owner-freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org  Tue Apr  5 22:14:36 2016
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-pkg@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8262B0302D
 for <freebsd-pkg@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>;
 Tue,  5 Apr 2016 22:14:36 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from marquis@roble.com)
Received: from mx5.roble.com (mx5.roble.com [206.40.34.5])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client CN "mx5.roble.com", Issuer "mx5.roble.com" (not verified))
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE2C51C5B
 for <freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org>; Tue,  5 Apr 2016 22:14:36 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from marquis@roble.com)
Received: from alba.roble.net (mx5.roble.com [206.40.34.5])
 by mx5.roble.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEEF267839
 for <freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org>; Tue,  5 Apr 2016 15:14:29 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 15:14:29 -0700
Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: ports-mgmt/pkg
From: "Roger Marquis" <marquis@roble.com>
To: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org
Reply-To: marquis@roble.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
X-BeenThere: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21
Precedence: list
List-Id: Binary package management and package tools discussion
 <freebsd-pkg.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-pkg>,
 <mailto:freebsd-pkg-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-pkg/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-pkg-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pkg>,
 <mailto:freebsd-pkg-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2016 22:14:36 -0000

Zsolt Ero wrote:
>I don't know how those tools internally check the state of packages,
>but anyone who self manages a server usually writes a long line of
>"pkg install -y pkg1 pkg2 pkg3" in a script. I would think that 99% of
>server deployment scripts are structured like this.

This is a major headache for us as well.  What benefit is there to '-y'
failing if a package or dependency is already installed and at the current
version?  Do we want to specify something like '-Y' instead of '-y' for this
regression?  Would appreciate a revert to the previous behavior and its
addition to pkg-add.

Roger


>Those lines are used in the sense of "make sure that pkg1, pkg2 and
>pkg3 are all installed after this command". Now the new change totally
>breaks this behaviour.