From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 26 17:38:44 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 7D54416A420 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:38:44 +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 432ED13C467 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:38:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wmoran@collaborativefusion.com) Received: from vanquish.pitbpa0.priv.collaborativefusion.com (vanquish.pitbpa0.priv.collaborativefusion.com [192.168.2.61]) (SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by wingspan with esmtp; Thu, 26 Jul 2007 13:38:43 -0400 id 00056405.46A8DC23.0001010A Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 13:38:42 -0400 From: Bill Moran To: Kris Kennaway Message-Id: <20070726133842.2ae2602a.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> In-Reply-To: <20070726171358.GA56272@rot26.obsecurity.org> References: <20070720085855.99fb2109.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> <20070720160749.54fec301.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> <20070721023933.GB24593@soaustin.net> <200707201950.21868.kstewart@owt.com> <20070721062053.91dd23bb.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> <20070726171358.GA56272@rot26.obsecurity.org> Organization: Collaborative Fusion X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.3.1 (GTK+ 2.10.11; i386-portbld-freebsd6.1) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ports@freebsd.org 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: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:38:44 -0000 In response to Kris Kennaway : > On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 06:20:53AM -0400, Bill Moran wrote: > > 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? > > Yes, use the NO_IGNORE variable (which just passed its tenth birthday) > to override IGNORE checks you disagree with. Huh ... here I am bitching and that's been there all along ... -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc. http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/ wmoran@collaborativefusion.com Phone: 412-422-3463x4023