Re: portmaster not ask for port deletion
Kevin Oberman wrote: Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:59:19 -0700 From: Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org Sender: owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org Skip Ford wrote: Well, it wasn't immediately obvious to me that someone would ever want to mark a port ignore and then want to upgrade it. So, it just seemed like a silly question to me (and still does to be honest, unless that's the behavior of portupgrade you're trying to match.) I honestly don't know what portupgrade does in that situation. There are at least 2 classes of users that I am trying to protect in this case: 1. Users who believe that -f should override +IGNOREME 2. Users who create an +IGNOREME file for some reason, then forget it's there. portupgrade does the same thing except that you hold them instead of ignoring them. I believe that this is the correct way. I have ports (e.g. openoffice.org) that take a VERY long time to build or that are run in production out of a crontab (rancid). I don't want to inadvertently update these with the '-a' option. (Especially th latter case.) When I really, really want to do them, I use '-f'. I think of '-f' as YES, I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY want to update this port now and I expect you to believe me. I don't really have a problem with portmaster asking to build +IGNOREME ports, especially if that's how portupgrade works. But, according to the man page, portmaster asks to upgrade IGNOREME ports whenever '-a' is present. That still just seems wrong to me, and that's what bit me (holding up my build for a few hours is all.) It's been years since I used portupgrade, but I thought I remembered that +IGNOREME was designed just for that purpose: to have portupgrade automatically skip certain ports when it was invoked with '-a'. -- Skip ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: portmaster not ask for port deletion
Skip Ford wrote: So, basically, portmaster stopped and asked for input because it thought I might've forgotten that I installed an +IGNOREME file 10 minutes prior. I'd prefer to not have tools that try to think about what I'm doing. It should do what I say it should do, not what it thinks I may have meant. Certainly, enough information was provided by me for portmaster to DTRT without causing any harm whatsoever if it didn't request input. You obviously have very strong opinions about how you think portmaster should operate, however you don't seem to be listening to my response. So I'll say it one more time then I'll leave it alone. No matter how strongly one user, or one group of users feels that their idea of how a tool should operate is The Right Way, there will always be other users who feel differently. Given that I also prefer to not have tools that try to 'think' about what I'm doing, when a situation is ambiguous portmaster prompts the user. Doug ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: portmaster not ask for port deletion
Doug Barton wrote: Skip Ford wrote: So, basically, portmaster stopped and asked for input because it thought I might've forgotten that I installed an +IGNOREME file 10 minutes prior. I'd prefer to not have tools that try to think about what I'm doing. It should do what I say it should do, not what it thinks I may have meant. Certainly, enough information was provided by me for portmaster to DTRT without causing any harm whatsoever if it didn't request input. You obviously have very strong opinions about how you think portmaster should operate, I wouldn't say that at all. I honestly haven't put any thought into it. I'm saying, that I used the tool and expected it to operate, with regard to +IGNOREME files, in the same way that all of the package tools and portupgrade (IIRC) have worked for the years I've been using the system. It didn't, and it caught me off-guard. That's just my review of using your code to upgrade a machine, not some strongly-held belief. At least now we know why it didn't, because it was worried about me possibly forgetting someday that I'd installed an +IGNOREME file. Frankly, that's none of it's business if my memory's failing. :) I think it should do what I tell it to do like the other tools have over the years. But whatever. I can change the code if I want. -- Skip ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: portmaster not ask for port deletion
Doug Barton wrote: Skip Ford wrote: Doug Barton wrote: Second, without knowing what command line you used I couldn't tell you for sure what happened of course, but assuming you used some combination of '-af' what you saw was expected behavior. There is a conflict (I think a fairly obvious one) between the -f option and +IGNOREME. Since different users would have different ideas of how to resolve that conflict, portmaster takes the safe path and asks you. Well, it wasn't immediately obvious to me that someone would ever want to mark a port ignore and then want to upgrade it. So, it just seemed like a silly question to me (and still does to be honest, unless that's the behavior of portupgrade you're trying to match.) I honestly don't know what portupgrade does in that situation. There are at least 2 classes of users that I am trying to protect in this case: 1. Users who believe that -f should override +IGNOREME 2. Users who create an +IGNOREME file for some reason, then forget it's there. So, basically, portmaster stopped and asked for input because it thought I might've forgotten that I installed an +IGNOREME file 10 minutes prior. I'd prefer to not have tools that try to think about what I'm doing. It should do what I say it should do, not what it thinks I may have meant. Certainly, enough information was provided by me for portmaster to DTRT without causing any harm whatsoever if it didn't request input. Great script anyway though compared to the alternatives. -- Skip ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: portmaster not ask for port deletion
On Wednesday 26 August 2009 05:34:11 Nenhum_de_Nos wrote: On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 07:28:48 -0700 Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote: Nenhum_de_Nos wrote: that's just what I was looking for. after the library bumps that happened after BETA2, I'd like to rebuild all :) There is an extensive writeup in the EXAMPLES section of the man page on how to rebuild all of your ports. I don't actually recommend that people use '-af' for that, although in theory it should work. yeah, I got bad luck. kBuild won't build in my machine. I had this before and just reinstalling solved. even pkg_delete -a didn't helped :( For some reason portmaster will not build kBuild or ports building with kBuild (such as virtulabox). However a manual make install clean works fine for me. I guess it's a bug in portmaster. Best Regards Troels Kofoed Jacobsen thanks, matheus Good luck, Doug ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: portmaster not ask for port deletion
Troels Kofoed Jacobsen wrote: For some reason portmaster will not build kBuild or ports building with kBuild (such as virtulabox). However a manual make install clean works fine for me. I guess it's a bug in portmaster. Don't guess. :) The bug is in kBuild. Portmaster makes heavy use of environment variables, some of which can grow quite large. Something in kBuild overflows at some point in the build process due to the large environment space. IIRC someone volunteered to report this to the kBuild folks, but I never heard back from them about it. hth, Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: portmaster not ask for port deletion
Skip Ford wrote: Doug Barton wrote: Yes, unfortunately it's not omniscient. :) Well, to be honest, it wouldn't need to be. It would just need a flag to know when nobody is present from whom to request input, and then take the default action. That's never going to happen. The default choice is not going to be the right one for some percentage of users. But, if all input is requested during config, then that's pointless. Yes, that's the goal. Second, without knowing what command line you used I couldn't tell you for sure what happened of course, but assuming you used some combination of '-af' what you saw was expected behavior. There is a conflict (I think a fairly obvious one) between the -f option and +IGNOREME. Since different users would have different ideas of how to resolve that conflict, portmaster takes the safe path and asks you. Well, it wasn't immediately obvious to me that someone would ever want to mark a port ignore and then want to upgrade it. So, it just seemed like a silly question to me (and still does to be honest, unless that's the behavior of portupgrade you're trying to match.) I honestly don't know what portupgrade does in that situation. There are at least 2 classes of users that I am trying to protect in this case: 1. Users who believe that -f should override +IGNOREME 2. Users who create an +IGNOREME file for some reason, then forget it's there. One of the problems with writing a tool like portmaster is that a lot of users have very strong ideas about how it should work, and very clear reasons for why they think that their way of looking at it is the right way. :) Unfortunately, there is usually an equal number of users on the other side who feel just as strongly. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: portmaster not ask for port deletion
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:59:19 -0700 From: Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org Sender: owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org Skip Ford wrote: Doug Barton wrote: Yes, unfortunately it's not omniscient. :) Well, to be honest, it wouldn't need to be. It would just need a flag to know when nobody is present from whom to request input, and then take the default action. That's never going to happen. The default choice is not going to be the right one for some percentage of users. But, if all input is requested during config, then that's pointless. Yes, that's the goal. Second, without knowing what command line you used I couldn't tell you for sure what happened of course, but assuming you used some combination of '-af' what you saw was expected behavior. There is a conflict (I think a fairly obvious one) between the -f option and +IGNOREME. Since different users would have different ideas of how to resolve that conflict, portmaster takes the safe path and asks you. Well, it wasn't immediately obvious to me that someone would ever want to mark a port ignore and then want to upgrade it. So, it just seemed like a silly question to me (and still does to be honest, unless that's the behavior of portupgrade you're trying to match.) I honestly don't know what portupgrade does in that situation. There are at least 2 classes of users that I am trying to protect in this case: 1. Users who believe that -f should override +IGNOREME 2. Users who create an +IGNOREME file for some reason, then forget it's there. portupgrade does the same thing except that you hold them instead of ignoring them. I believe that this is the correct way. I have ports (e.g. openoffice.org) that take a VERY long time to build or that are run in production out of a crontab (rancid). I don't want to inadvertently update these with the '-a' option. (Especially th latter case.) When I really, really want to do them, I use '-f'. I think of '-f' as YES, I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY want to update this port now and I expect you to believe me. One of the problems with writing a tool like portmaster is that a lot of users have very strong ideas about how it should work, and very clear reasons for why they think that their way of looking at it is the right way. :) Unfortunately, there is usually an equal number of users on the other side who feel just as strongly. Yep, You can never design a tool more complex than a rock that will please everyone. Wait, that rock is too (soft | small | large | rounded | sharp | etc) for me. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: ober...@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751 ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: portmaster not ask for port deletion
On Wed, August 26, 2009 16:51, Doug Barton wrote: Troels Kofoed Jacobsen wrote: For some reason portmaster will not build kBuild or ports building with kBuild (such as virtulabox). However a manual make install clean works fine for me. I guess it's a bug in portmaster. Don't guess. :) The bug is in kBuild. Portmaster makes heavy use of environment variables, some of which can grow quite large. Something in kBuild overflows at some point in the build process due to the large environment space. IIRC someone volunteered to report this to the kBuild folks, but I never heard back from them about it. hail, a make install clean did the job really. got curious about what is this. cause firing portmaster /path/to/port is realy great :) matheus -- We will call you cygnus, The God of balance you shall be A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: portmaster not ask for port deletion
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:54:54 -0700 Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote: Nenhum_de_Nos wrote: hail, portmaster is great, but this is keeping me from using it.I want to fire a portmaster -af and let it there until its done. for every package it asks this. is ther any way to make it not ask ? delete and go ahead ? You really want to read the man page thoroughly before you begin using portmaster. I've taken a lot of time to try and explain how it works in the man page, and what your options are. In particular, you probably do not really want to use the -f option on a regular basis since that does not do what it does in portupgrade. In portmaster using '-af' would rebuild all of your ports, not just the ones that need upgrading. that's just what I was looking for. after the library bumps that happened after BETA2, I'd like to rebuild all :) It sounds to me like what you're seeing is portmaster asking whether or not you want to delete the distfiles after an upgrade. The easiest way to deal with that is to use '-aD' and then when it's done use either --clean-distfiles or --clean-distfiles-all. Once again, see the man page for more information on those options. I just want to fire the command and it work alone till is done. hope this helps, it sure did :) thanks matheus Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org -- We will call you cygnus, The God of balance you shall be A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: portmaster not ask for port deletion
Nenhum_de_Nos wrote: that's just what I was looking for. after the library bumps that happened after BETA2, I'd like to rebuild all :) There is an extensive writeup in the EXAMPLES section of the man page on how to rebuild all of your ports. I don't actually recommend that people use '-af' for that, although in theory it should work. Good luck, Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: portmaster not ask for port deletion
Nenhum_de_Nos wrote: On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:54:54 -0700 Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote: It sounds to me like what you're seeing is portmaster asking whether or not you want to delete the distfiles after an upgrade. The easiest way to deal with that is to use '-aD' and then when it's done use either --clean-distfiles or --clean-distfiles-all. Once again, see the man page for more information on those options. I just want to fire the command and it work alone till is done. Good luck with unattended runs of portmaster. That's the only real remaining shortfall of portmaster, IMO. It still needs hand-holding to finish its job often times. For example, I just did the big rebuild you're getting ready for. I spent a good 45 minutes updating ports.conf beforehand, fetching a good number of distfiles in advance, and configuring ports before starting the massive build. I also told portmaster to ignore 3 ports (1 broken, 2 would most likely fail to build for one reason or another.) So, I started the build and left. Came back 7 hours later and portmaster had barely run an hour and was stuck waiting for input. What was so important? It wanted to know if it should go ahead an update the 3 ports that I had just explicitly told it not to upgrade 10 minutes before I started it (by using .IGNOREME files). Of course I don't want it to upgrade them anyway. If I wanted them upgraded, I wouldn't have installed IGNOREME files. So, portmaster still needs some hand-holding compared to other tools. But, it still beats portupgrade IMO. -- Skip ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: portmaster not ask for port deletion
Skip Ford wrote: Nenhum_de_Nos wrote: On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:54:54 -0700 Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote: It sounds to me like what you're seeing is portmaster asking whether or not you want to delete the distfiles after an upgrade. The easiest way to deal with that is to use '-aD' and then when it's done use either --clean-distfiles or --clean-distfiles-all. Once again, see the man page for more information on those options. I just want to fire the command and it work alone till is done. Good luck with unattended runs of portmaster. That's the only real remaining shortfall of portmaster, IMO. It still needs hand-holding to finish its job often times. Yes, unfortunately it's not omniscient. :) For example, I just did the big rebuild you're getting ready for. I spent a good 45 minutes updating ports.conf beforehand, fetching a good number of distfiles in advance, and configuring ports before starting the massive build. I also told portmaster to ignore 3 ports (1 broken, 2 would most likely fail to build for one reason or another.) So, I started the build and left. Came back 7 hours later and portmaster had barely run an hour and was stuck waiting for input. What was so important? It wanted to know if it should go ahead an update the 3 ports that I had just explicitly told it not to upgrade 10 minutes before I started it (by using .IGNOREME files). First, you mean +IGNOREME files, just to be sure no one is confused. Second, without knowing what command line you used I couldn't tell you for sure what happened of course, but assuming you used some combination of '-af' what you saw was expected behavior. There is a conflict (I think a fairly obvious one) between the -f option and +IGNOREME. Since different users would have different ideas of how to resolve that conflict, portmaster takes the safe path and asks you. You only have to answer the question once, during the config phase. Once it starts building things you should not have any more prompts from portmaster. Looking at the man page I see that the dividing line between when to expect interaction and when not to is not as clear as it could be. I'll update that for the next version. In any case, I find it highly unlikely that it ran for a full hour before prompting for the answer. On my system with over 500 ports installed the full run through the config phase takes just a little over 6 minutes. It might take you a little longer than that if you have a lot of OPTIONS dialogs to make choices on, but those would have been pretty obvious. My guess is that you literally started it and walked away. Portmaster does everything it can to get all of the user interaction out of the way in the config phase so that once it starts building there is nothing for the user to do. Of course if there is a problem in the ports infrastructure itself portmaster can't help with that but obviously the goal is to keep those to a minimum. :) hope this helps, Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: portmaster not ask for port deletion
Doug Barton wrote: Skip Ford wrote: Nenhum_de_Nos wrote: On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:54:54 -0700 Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote: It sounds to me like what you're seeing is portmaster asking whether or not you want to delete the distfiles after an upgrade. The easiest way to deal with that is to use '-aD' and then when it's done use either --clean-distfiles or --clean-distfiles-all. Once again, see the man page for more information on those options. I just want to fire the command and it work alone till is done. Good luck with unattended runs of portmaster. That's the only real remaining shortfall of portmaster, IMO. It still needs hand-holding to finish its job often times. Yes, unfortunately it's not omniscient. :) Well, to be honest, it wouldn't need to be. It would just need a flag to know when nobody is present from whom to request input, and then take the default action. But, if all input is requested during config, then that's pointless. For example, I just did the big rebuild you're getting ready for. I spent a good 45 minutes updating ports.conf beforehand, fetching a good number of distfiles in advance, and configuring ports before starting the massive build. I also told portmaster to ignore 3 ports (1 broken, 2 would most likely fail to build for one reason or another.) So, I started the build and left. Came back 7 hours later and portmaster had barely run an hour and was stuck waiting for input. What was so important? It wanted to know if it should go ahead an update the 3 ports that I had just explicitly told it not to upgrade 10 minutes before I started it (by using .IGNOREME files). First, you mean +IGNOREME files, just to be sure no one is confused. Second, without knowing what command line you used I couldn't tell you for sure what happened of course, but assuming you used some combination of '-af' what you saw was expected behavior. There is a conflict (I think a fairly obvious one) between the -f option and +IGNOREME. Since different users would have different ideas of how to resolve that conflict, portmaster takes the safe path and asks you. Well, it wasn't immediately obvious to me that someone would ever want to mark a port ignore and then want to upgrade it. So, it just seemed like a silly question to me (and still does to be honest, unless that's the behavior of portupgrade you're trying to match.) You only have to answer the question once, during the config phase. Once it starts building things you should not have any more prompts from portmaster. Looking at the man page I see that the dividing line between when to expect interaction and when not to is not as clear as it could be. I'll update that for the next version. No, that was clear enough. The behavior I saw was documented, I just didn't see the ambiguity in IGNOREME in advance so I didn't read the fine print until I was trying to figure out how my big plan went so wrong. Your code worked as documented. I just expected the presence of an IGNOREME file to always mean, the port will be ignored for all purposes. In any case, I find it highly unlikely that it ran for a full hour before prompting for the answer. On my system with over 500 ports installed the full run through the config phase takes just a little over 6 minutes. It might take you a little longer than that if you have a lot of OPTIONS dialogs to make choices on, but those would have been pretty obvious. I was just giving a guess at an hour. I wasn't here. :) That hour (out of the 7 I was gone) was supposed to mean that it didn't run for very long. My guess is that you literally started it and walked away. In the end, that has to be what happened. I spent 45 minutes going through several config runs of portmaster and/or configuring ports by hand. Once I knew I had everything configured, I launched it for the final time and left. So, it probably ran for 2 minutes, not an hour. I screwed that up and I also didn't prevent the recursive make config on the final run which sounded after the fact like it would've helped. But, besides that, the upgrade was painless. Everything built, installed, and works. Pretty amazing all things considered. -- Skip ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: portmaster not ask for port deletion
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 07:28:48 -0700 Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote: Nenhum_de_Nos wrote: that's just what I was looking for. after the library bumps that happened after BETA2, I'd like to rebuild all :) There is an extensive writeup in the EXAMPLES section of the man page on how to rebuild all of your ports. I don't actually recommend that people use '-af' for that, although in theory it should work. yeah, I got bad luck. kBuild won't build in my machine. I had this before and just reinstalling solved. even pkg_delete -a didn't helped :( thanks, matheus Good luck, Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection -- We will call you cygnus, The God of balance you shall be A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: portmaster not ask for port deletion
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 12:03:40PM -0300, Nenhum_de_Nos wrote: hail, portmaster is great, but this is keeping me from using it.I want to fire a portmaster -af and let it there until its done. for every package it asks this. is ther any way to make it not ask ? delete and go ahead ? thanks, matheus ps:unless this is what portmaster's man calls backup package (and I'm not sure it is) I found no way to do this in the man While recursing through the dependencies, if a port is marked IS_INTERAC- TIVE this will be flagged. In the absence of this notification, under normal circumstances the only user interaction required after the port starts building is to answer questions about the deletion of stale dist- files. This can be eliminated with the -d or -D options. use -d to auto-delete, or -D for keeping the distfiles. Zlo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: portmaster not ask for port deletion
On Mon, August 24, 2009 12:06, Marc Olzheim wrote: On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 12:03:40PM -0300, Nenhum_de_Nos wrote: hail, portmaster is great, but this is keeping me from using it.I want to fire a portmaster -af and let it there until its done. for every package it asks this. is ther any way to make it not ask ? delete and go ahead ? thanks, matheus ps:unless this is what portmaster's man calls backup package (and I'm not sure it is) I found no way to do this in the man While recursing through the dependencies, if a port is marked IS_INTERAC- TIVE this will be flagged. In the absence of this notification, under normal circumstances the only user interaction required after the port starts building is to answer questions about the deletion of stale dist- files. This can be eliminated with the -d or -D options. use -d to auto-delete, or -D for keeping the distfiles. Zlo thanks, I just got to the options, not read it though. now I see I should. Thanks, matheus -- We will call you cygnus, The God of balance you shall be A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: portmaster not ask for port deletion
Nenhum_de_Nos wrote: hail, portmaster is great, but this is keeping me from using it.I want to fire a portmaster -af and let it there until its done. for every package it asks this. is ther any way to make it not ask ? delete and go ahead ? You really want to read the man page thoroughly before you begin using portmaster. I've taken a lot of time to try and explain how it works in the man page, and what your options are. In particular, you probably do not really want to use the -f option on a regular basis since that does not do what it does in portupgrade. In portmaster using '-af' would rebuild all of your ports, not just the ones that need upgrading. It sounds to me like what you're seeing is portmaster asking whether or not you want to delete the distfiles after an upgrade. The easiest way to deal with that is to use '-aD' and then when it's done use either --clean-distfiles or --clean-distfiles-all. Once again, see the man page for more information on those options. hope this helps, Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: portmaster not ask for port deletion
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:54:54 -0700 From: Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org Sender: owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org Nenhum_de_Nos wrote: hail, portmaster is great, but this is keeping me from using it.I want to fire a portmaster -af and let it there until its done. for every package it asks this. is ther any way to make it not ask ? delete and go ahead ? You really want to read the man page thoroughly before you begin using portmaster. I've taken a lot of time to try and explain how it works in the man page, and what your options are. In particular, you probably do not really want to use the -f option on a regular basis since that does not do what it does in portupgrade. In portmaster using '-af' would rebuild all of your ports, not just the ones that need upgrading. It sounds to me like what you're seeing is portmaster asking whether or not you want to delete the distfiles after an upgrade. The easiest way to deal with that is to use '-aD' and then when it's done use either --clean-distfiles or --clean-distfiles-all. Once again, see the man page for more information on those options. Just in case someone reads this and tries 'portupgrade -af', it also will re-build all installed ports, whether they need upgrading. This is the command to re-build ALL ports when the library versions get bumped (as they did recently for 8.0BETA). To just update the ports that need updating, the command is 'portupgrade -a', probably the same as in portmaster. In either case (portupgrade or portmaster), read the man pages BEFORE shooting yourself in the foot. Both can certainly do that. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: ober...@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751 ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: portmaster not ask for port deletion
Kevin Oberman wrote: Just in case someone reads this and tries 'portupgrade -af', it also will re-build all installed ports, whether they need upgrading. This is the command to re-build ALL ports when the library versions get bumped (as they did recently for 8.0BETA). To just update the ports that need updating, the command is 'portupgrade -a', probably the same as in portmaster. Yeah, I should have been more clear. '-af' will do the same thing in both tools. Where it gets interesting is that when specifying individual ports on the command line portmaster does by default what 'portupgrade -f' does. In either case (portupgrade or portmaster), read the man pages BEFORE shooting yourself in the foot. Both can certainly do that. Agreed. :) Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
