Bill Moran wrote:
It's a combination of a number of issues:
1) The ports infrastructure shouldn't let you set options that don't make
sense.
I think that one could argue that it should be _hard_ to set options
that "don't make sense," but I don't think it should be impossible. you
have to keep in mind that we cater to a very diverse user community,
from rank beginners to advanced hackers.
2) Why is portupgrade dying on a warning message? Why does a poor
decision on one port prevent everything on my system from upgrading?
For the same reason that portmaster dies on errors, neither program is
omniscient. :) If ports tools hit a point where it's not clear how to
proceed they _should_ stop and get user input. The next thing the users
generally say is that it should "somehow" proceed with the rest of the
upgrade, finish things that don't rely on the broken bits, etc.
Unfortunately that is quite a bit harder to do than you might think,
although patches are always welcome.
3) The error from portupgrade does not immediately point me to the easy
solution, it tricks me into thinking I have to hack the Makefile.
I don't actually think that the error message you're referring to is
from portupgrade, I think it's from the port itself.
Anyway, I don't know what the correct solution is. I'm just pointing
out the problem so that people smarter than me can work it out. I'm
also presenting my viewpoint so those people know how confusing it was
to me.
Hope the information is helpful.
Yes it is. No matter how hard we try it's impossible for us to test all
the possible combinations, and hearing how things look from the "typical
user perspective" is always valuable.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
