Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2012 07:04:13 -0600 From: "Conrad J. Sabatier" <conrads@cox.net> To: Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com> Cc: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portupgrade -> portmaster Rosetta Stone? Message-ID: <20120303070413.3da1b6a1@cox.net> In-Reply-To: <20306.2907.309020.842953@jerusalem.litteratus.org> References: <CA%2BE3k93doEmK7YpiZLgBCB5WUmOeCCLLLQBak_-Nx8sGqiafhQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABzXLYM47FjwmEvKijOp41Hn0KhTTPJ-dnX58PxTS8oUff-THQ@mail.gmail.com> <4F4BA7CE.20107@FreeBSD.org> <20120303010602.6daeb272@cox.net> <4F51D392.8080605@FreeBSD.org> <20306.2907.309020.842953@jerusalem.litteratus.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 07:15:23 -0500 Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com> wrote: > > Doug Barton writes: > > > On 3/2/2012 11:06 PM, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote: > > > Doug, is there a way to emulate portupgrade's "-k" (keep going) > > > option, to have the remaining list of ports to be built still > > > continue processing even if one port's build fails? > > > > You haven't missed it, the answer is no. It's part of that > > "portmaster can't read minds" problem that if something fails, I > > have no way of knowing if the rest of the updates should stop as > > a result. > > But ... isn't this a case where you don't have to read minds? > It seems (to me) the user would be saying "I understand the risk, > and accept responsibility for dealing with the consequences.". At > that point, whether thet're right or wrong is not your problem .... > > > Robert Huff Yes, that's how I feel about it, myself, and it seems to have been the philosophy of the portupgrade author as well. Let the user shoot himself in the foot. :-) -- Conrad J. Sabatier conrads@cox.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120303070413.3da1b6a1>