Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 08:25:26 -0400 From: Adam McLaurin <adam.mclaurin@gmx.net> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portupgrade misbehavior Message-ID: <20040520082526.0e5362c1.adam.mclaurin@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <86k6z7e7uv.knu@iDaemons.org> References: <20040520025535.41b274ac.adam.mclaurin@gmx.net> <86k6z7e7uv.knu@iDaemons.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 20 May 2004 19:00:24 +0900 "Akinori MUSHA" <knu@iDaemons.org> wrote: > At Thu, 20 May 2004 02:55:35 -0400, > Adam McLaurin wrote: > > -# portupgrade -a -x "kdebase*" -x "apache*" -x "mod_php4*" -f > > galeon2 > > Separating it into the following two invocations will work: > > # portupgrade -a -x "kdebase*" -x "apache*" -x "mod_php4*" > # portupgrade -f galeon2 > > > Why the h*ll did portupgrade try to recompile zsh? I can't think of > > any > > logical explanation for this behavior. Perhaps I am missing > > something > > simple here; or perhaps I stumbled across a bug in portupgrade (or > > even > > ruby) ? > > It is because the -f flag is effective globally, it does not work just > against the following ones. Only -m and -o are contextual. Ah yes, that makes sense .. I always thought -f was contextual; re-reading the manpage, I see that I was wrong. Whoops! However, perhaps a contextual force isn't a bad idea for a future feature of portupgrade? What do you think? Thanks knu! -- Adam
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040520082526.0e5362c1.adam.mclaurin>