On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 12:16:05PM +0100, David Demelier wrote: > A lot of people always forget to read UPDATING (that's normal we'll are > humans). > > Each entry in UPDATING is like "AFFECTS: users of net-mgmt/flowd" so if > an update of net-mgmt/flowd is available and a *recent* entry in > UPDATING talks about then print the message. > > This can prevent a lot of breakage and useless noise on lists. What do > you think ?
That's essentially what ports-mgmt/portupdate-scan tries to do. The problem is that UPDATING was intended to be a human-readable file so there is no consistent usage of the AFFECTS: line patterns. You have deal with AFFECTS lines that you cannot machine-parse. You have to deal with moved ports, different wildcard naming conventions, and other forms of ambiguity. portupdate-scan uses Perl regex to try to cope with this, but doesn't do a perfect job. Unless the format of UPDATING gets tightened up to allow it to be better understood by machine, I'm not sure it's worth bloating portmaster with this functionality since it won't be able to do a perfect job of it. It could result in list noise about false positives and false negatives in this area. Merry Christmas, Alex _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
