In response to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Linimon): > On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 08:58:55AM -0400, Bill Moran wrote: > > Why? Is there a legitimate reason why the fetch process refuses to > > download this? > > The intention of the logic is to warn a user, as soon as possible, that > they are spending time on something that will wind up being IGNOREd if > it is installed. There is no logic there to try to figure out "later > version of port"; it simply looks for "is IGNORE set?" > > Since some downloads take a long time, this does not seem too unreasonable > to me. > > If we moved the check later, the process of trying to install a port that > would be IGNOREd would be: spend time fetching and checksumming it, and > only then tell the user that they had wasted their time.
I suspected there was some reasoning along that line. > I think the best we could do is add something analagous to how > DISABLE_VULNERABILITIES factors into it, and allow foot-shooting only > if demanded, but turn it off by default. That would be less annoying than having to constantly hack files in /usr/ports/Mk ... :) Even better would be for make to realize that it's only doing the fetching, and do it anyway. I don't know if this is possible, though. Sooner or later, the person running the system is going to pull out the foot-gun (you can only protect them so much) and waiting for a download that can't install is a comparatively small bullet ... -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc. http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 412-422-3463x4023 _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
