On 15/11/2011 19:25, Chris Rees wrote: > On 15 November 2011 19:19, Matthew Seaman > <m.sea...@infracaninophile.co.uk> wrote: >> On 15/11/2011 19:01, Matthew Seaman wrote: >>> On 11/11/2011 22:23, Doug Barton wrote: >>>>> By its >>>>>> nature, deprecated ports tends not to be updated for long time, port >>>>>> tools like portmaster, portupgrade will not even see it because no >>>>>> PORTREVISION bump happen. >>> >>>> portmaster -L will warn you about ports marked >>>> DEPRECATED/FORBIDDEN/IGNORE/BROKEN if you run it against an updated >>>> ports tree. One area where we actually can improve here is to also put >>>> this information in the INDEX. I have an idea for that, just haven't >>>> been able to put the time into making it happen. >>> >>> How about something like the attached? >> >> Ooops. Wrong diff. Like this: > > Why have you included IGNOREd? > > Just curious....
A pedantic desire to cover all possibilities. It probably doesn't need
to be there, but my (admittedly cursory) reading of the code suggests
that by defining NO_IGNORE it could still be possible to build a pkg.
Cheers,
Matthew
--
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
