From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 29 18:48:41 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A51BB106564A for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:48:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31E608FC0A for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:48:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 20908 invoked by uid 399); 29 Jul 2009 18:48:35 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO foreign.dougb.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 29 Jul 2009 18:48:35 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <4A709981.80600@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:48:33 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org References: <1248027417.14210.110.camel@neo.cse.buffalo.edu> <200907232335.54973.mel.flynn+fbsd.current@mailing.thruhere.net> <4A6FF5FA.5010904@FreeBSD.org> <200907282342.25038.mel.flynn+fbsd.current@mailing.thruhere.net> <4A707534.8000808@FreeBSD.org> <20090729170601.GA2841@tafi.alm.flutnet.org> In-Reply-To: <20090729170601.GA2841@tafi.alm.flutnet.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: id=D5B2F0FB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: portmaster -R (Was: Re: HEADS-UP: Shared Library Versions bumped...) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:48:41 -0000 Alson van der Meulen wrote: > * Doug Barton [2009-07-29 18:13]: >> Mel Flynn wrote: >>> Gotcha. Is there a reason the flags are removed if the options are not "-r or >>> -f"? >> Yes, so we don't have stale flags sitting around forever to confuse >> future runs. > > I have been bitten by this in the past. A run of portmaster -r > some-lib-that-half-of-my-ports-depend-on aborted because of a shared > library error in a dependency which was not recompiled before the > dependent port. I recompiled the dependency with a manual portmaster > $portname, after this portmaster -r had to start all over. I didn't > expect portmaster to clear the PM_DONE flags during non-resumable > operations like rebuilding a single port (and the manpage contains very > little information about -R). My workaround is to use portupgrade for > these manual fixes. Yes, I've been considering that exact scenario since atm I'm rebuilding all my ports with -afR. How about this? When the user has -[rf] but not -R, and there are flag files present, ask if they should be cleared before beginning to do anything. Otherwise (no -[rf]) ignore them. Sound good? Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection