On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Ben Morrow wrote:
Yes, I can see it needs to be an option. Presumably 'don't ask me again' is
too Microsoft :)? Maybe something like 'Mark this package as explicitly
required?'? That's pretty much the user-visible effect.
Thanks for the suggestions.
I know the first time I saw that message, when I didn't really understand
what it meant, my reaction was 'Delete something? No!' which wasn't the right
answer.
Yeah, looking back on this from the user perspective it wasn't the best
choice of messages.
No. I have occasionally wondered if a sensible solution would be to drop
portmaster/portupgrade altogether and just maintain a local sysutils/world
port with a list of what I want installed, and 'make deinstall reinstall'
whenever it changes (with something like pkg_cutleaves to clear out the
trash). I suspect I would lose something I'm currently relying on (certainly,
portmaster's -o and -r options wouldn't be trivial to emulate) but it does
seem to me that both portmaster and portupgrade spend an awful lot of time
doing things like tracking dependancies that bsd.port.mk already does for
you.
I can't speak for portupgrade but the vast majority of time with
portmaster is actually spent building the port. The updating of
/var/db/pkg is trivial in comparison. What portmaster does that
bsd.port.mk by itself does not is allow you to update dependencies in
place instead of having to uninstall the things that depend on them first,
then reinstall them after the update.
hth,
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
