On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:16:28 -0400 Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In response to Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > 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. > > Understood. But keep in mind that this was not an error, it was a > warning. Perhaps the ports infrastructure doesn't differentiate > between those two as much as I think. It's actually nothing to do with the ports infrastructure, this has no effect on a normal manual build, or on portmaster. The warning is treated as an error by portupgrade. If you remove the 2>&1 redirection in line 1463 of portupgrade, the port will be built. I don't know if it has a good reason for treating writes to stderr as fatal errors, or not. No other port uses ".warning", they all use "echo" or IGNORE. _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
