From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Aug 8 18:52:16 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1B2C106564A for ; Sat, 8 Aug 2009 18:52:16 +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 725D78FC1E for ; Sat, 8 Aug 2009 18:52:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 27490 invoked by uid 399); 8 Aug 2009 18:52:12 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO foreign.dougb.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 8 Aug 2009 18:52:12 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <4A7DC956.5010402@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2009 11:52:06 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090729) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lawrence Stewart References: <4A5C954C.5060507@quip.cz> <4A5C9A98.5020006@isafeelin.org> <4A5CA8CF.2070906@freebsd.org> <4A5D9FD8.3080209@isafeelin.org> <4A5E02DE.1010908@freebsd.org> <4A7DC792.2080200@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4A7DC792.2080200@freebsd.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: id=D5B2F0FB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Frederique Rijsdijk , Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portmaster -x not working? 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: Sat, 08 Aug 2009 18:52:17 -0000 Lawrence Stewart wrote: > Today, I again had need of the ability to exclude multiple ports from an > update run. It turns out your tip doesn't work with portmaster, though I > suspect it would with portupgrade. For now, if you need to exclude more than one port you can check the man page about +IGNOREME files. > Doug, what do you think of the attached patch? I think it's interesting, but not quite how I would do it. I have plans to rewrite the command line parser in order to accommodate this, and make things easier to work with generally, so stay tuned. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection