In response to Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 06:20:53AM -0400, Bill Moran wrote: > > Kent Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On Friday 20 July 2007, Mark Linimon wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 04:07:49PM -0400, Bill Moran wrote: > > > > > Even better would be for make to realize that it's only doing the > > > > > fetching, and do it anyway. > > > > > > > > That still doesn't help with the problem of a user who starts a 10MB > > > > download that won't work on his architecture or OS release. The code > > > > is all the same. This is the aggravation we are trying to prevent. > > > > > > That still doesn't address the concern or improve the system downtime > > > that a pkg_delete, make install allows. If you can't run something, you > > > don't have any downtime but to have to pkg_delete before you start the > > > tarball fetch can be really long on some ports. > > > > It's certainly a tradeoff. Either way you do it, there are practical > > scenarios where a user is inconvenienced. > > > > Perhaps an environmental override is the best route. NO_IGNORE=yes > > or something similar? > > Yes, use the NO_IGNORE variable (which just passed its tenth birthday) > to override IGNORE checks you disagree with.
Huh ... here I am bitching and that's been there all along ... -- 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]"
