On May 23, 2007, at 10:19 AM, RW wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2007 00:25:31 +1000
Norberto Meijome <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Wed, 23 May 2007 09:53:39 +0200
Heinrich Rebehn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

This is weird! A program that is supposed to show the *status* of
installed ports should never arbitrarily *remove* ports.

I agree that is not clear why it is removing ports without warning.

Well, we don't actually know that. I suspect that there was a warning,

It shouldn't be removing *anything* without user confirmation. any other behavior is Broken and Wrong. Warnings are irrelevant if you just go ahead and do the dangerous thing you were warning about anyway.

but it went to stdout and was eaten by "|grep OLD". Portmanger then
waited for a y/n response for 5 minutes, and went with the default of
deleting the port.

From the portmanager(1) man page:
 -s or --status
          status of installed ports

Says *nothing* about even the possibility of removing installed ports. Just status. If -s is removing installed ports which have been moved/removed from the ports tree without confirmation then it's broken, plain and simple.

portmanager also has -s -l *AND* -sl options^Wcommands. -sl has not a thing to do with -s or -l. Broken by design. -sl should by convention be equivalent to -s -l, instead -sl maps to --show-leaves while -s maps to --status and --l maps to log. Lame. And there's no difference between 'switches' (options) and commands (imperatives).
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions- [EMAIL PROTECTED]"

_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to