[If you follow up to this message please change freebsd-stable@ to
freebsd-po...@. Thanks.]
Ben Morrow wrote:
> Since my machine has spent the last 48hrs or so rebuilding everything
> that depended on jpeg-6b and python25 (it's a pretty old machine), I've
> been wondering if an option to say '*do
Quoth Doug Barton :
>
> How about this? When the user has -[rf] but not -R, and there are flag
> files present, ask if they should be cleared before beginning to do
> anything. Otherwise (no -[rf]) ignore them. Sound good?
Since my machine has spent the last 48hrs or so rebuilding everything
that
Cezary Morga wrote:
> Alson van der Meulen pisze:
>> * Doug Barton [2009-07-29 22:10]:
>>> I'm planning to remove the -u option altogether. It actually does very
>>> little now, and certainly does not do what most users expect it should
>>> do.
>
> If I may chip in here on a similar note.
> I'm c
Miroslav Lachman pisze:
If I may chip in here on a similar note.
I'm currently looking for a port management tool that might replace good
ol' portinstall/portupgrade tools in my toolbox. Portmaster looks
promising but I noticed that it doesn't seem to take BATCH=yes in my
/etc/make.conf into c
Cezary Morga wrote:
Alson van der Meulen pisze:
* Doug Barton [2009-07-29 22:10]:
I'm planning to remove the -u option altogether. It actually does very
little now, and certainly does not do what most users expect it should
do.
If I may chip in here on a similar note.
I'm currently lookin
Alson van der Meulen pisze:
* Doug Barton [2009-07-29 22:10]:
I'm planning to remove the -u option altogether. It actually does very
little now, and certainly does not do what most users expect it should
do.
If I may chip in here on a similar note.
I'm currently looking for a port management
* Doug Barton [2009-07-29 22:10]:
> I'm planning to remove the -u option altogether. It actually does very
> little now, and certainly does not do what most users expect it should
> do.
Fine by me. I've never actually used -u, with -d (or the equivalent
portmaster.rc setting) it's usually fine fo
alson...@alm.flutnet.org wrote:
> * Doug Barton [2009-07-29 20:48]:
>> How about this? When the user has -[rf] but not -R, and there are flag
>> files present, ask if they should be cleared before beginning to do
>> anything. Otherwise (no -[rf]) ignore them. Sound good?
>
> Sounds like a good so
* Doug Barton [2009-07-29 20:48]:
> How about this? When the user has -[rf] but not -R, and there are flag
> files present, ask if they should be cleared before beginning to do
> anything. Otherwise (no -[rf]) ignore them. Sound good?
Sounds like a good solution for both problems (stale flag file
Mel Flynn wrote:
> On Wednesday 29 July 2009 10:48:33 Doug Barton wrote:
>> Alson van der Meulen wrote:
>>> * Doug Barton [2009-07-29 18:13]:
Mel Flynn wrote:
> Gotcha. Is there a reason the flags are removed if the options are not
> "-r or -f"?
Yes, so we don't have stale flags
On Wednesday 29 July 2009 10:48:33 Doug Barton wrote:
> Alson van der Meulen wrote:
> > * Doug Barton [2009-07-29 18:13]:
> >> Mel Flynn wrote:
> >>> Gotcha. Is there a reason the flags are removed if the options are not
> >>> "-r or -f"?
> >>
> >> Yes, so we don't have stale flags sitting around
Alson van der Meulen wrote:
> * Doug Barton [2009-07-29 18:13]:
>> Mel Flynn wrote:
>>> Gotcha. Is there a reason the flags are removed if the options are not "-r
>>> or
>>> -f"?
>> Yes, so we don't have stale flags sitting around forever to confuse
>> future runs.
>
> I have been bitten by thi
12 matches
Mail list logo
