On 8/28/2011 11:33 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> Apparently, this have to be written explicitely. Users, who upgrade
> their ports, are not presented with the configuration dialog.
The dialog is re-presented to the user if the quantity of options has
changed. That's a feature. See my previous message on a way to make this
feature work for us in this situation.
> Using
> automated tool like portupgrade, all you get is a list of the failed
> ports. After that, user needs to start investigation, spending his
> own time and possibly time of the people on list.
>
> Ignoring or removing the option makes the ports upgrade without user
> intervention.
Neither of those is a valid option (pardon the pun). The primary goal is
to avoid breaking the user's system, not to make the upgrade process go
through without human intervention. Imagine a scenario where the user
has a critical dependency on cups being compiled with gnutls. Not
upgrading the currently installed (and working) version is a totally
valid outcome. Silently upgrading cups to a version without gnutls makes
the upgrade process "successful," but with a very poor outcome for the
user.
Doug
--
Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
-- OK Go
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
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"
