Erwin Lansing wrote: > As I described earlier, SUP_UPDATE, CVS_UPDATE and PORTSNAP_UPDATE are > mutually exclusive and cannot be used at the same time. That it worked > before was an artifact which has been fixed. That is doesn't work > anymore means the designed behaviour finally has been fixed and not > broken :-)
As I said before, this is a non-sense: portsnap cannot be used to update src, so it shouldn't prevent to use sup or cvs for such job. I don't know who decided such mutually exclusive behavior, but actually is a (wrong) priority behavior, so the design is still flawed in that sense (if you define SUP_UPDATE and CVS_UPDATE you will use cvs, if you define SUP_UPDATE and PORTSNAP_UPDATE you will get an error). I vote for the enhanced priority behavior: src ports SUP_UPDATE + SUPFILE PORTSNAP_UPDATE CVS_UPDATE SUP_UPDATE + PORTSSUPFILE CVS_UPDATE > Your patch reintroduces PORTSNAP_UPDATE with a new meaning. Previous meaning, not new. Where is defined the official PORTSNAP_UPDATE meaning? > While I > dislike this workaround for an unsupported configuration, it may be > needed for backwards compatability. Please send-pr your patch, but > please also add documentation of the new meaning of PORTSNAP_UPDATE. I'll do it. -- Alex Dupre _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"