From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 29 19:58:23 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 99CC410656D7 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:58:23 +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 498308FC1A for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:58:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 15800 invoked by uid 399); 29 Jul 2009 19:58:19 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO foreign.dougb.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 29 Jul 2009 19:58:19 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <4A70A9D8.4020701@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 12:58:16 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mel Flynn References: <1248027417.14210.110.camel@neo.cse.buffalo.edu> <20090729170601.GA2841@tafi.alm.flutnet.org> <4A709981.80600@FreeBSD.org> <200907291135.16470.mel.flynn+fbsd.current@mailing.thruhere.net> In-Reply-To: <200907291135.16470.mel.flynn+fbsd.current@mailing.thruhere.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: id=D5B2F0FB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 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 19:58:24 -0000 Mel Flynn wrote: > On Wednesday 29 July 2009 10:48:33 Doug Barton wrote: >> 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? > > That's definitely "what you would expect it to do". Ok, good. I've refined that slightly so that if the user chooses not to delete them they are offered the option of enabling the -R option. Thanks for the feedback. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection