-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Doug Barton wrote:
Personally I think that portmaster's approach is the right one. If you
accidentally delete something that it turns out you really do need,
you can always install it again. On the other hand, the presence of an
empty
Doug Barton said:
Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
Hi,
Is there a way to track dependency-only ports, so that if I install
port0 which requires port1 which in turn requires port2 and so on,
deinstalling port0 will deinstall portN up to the first one required
by
another port or one I
Michel Talon wrote:
Doug Barton said:
Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
Hi,
Is there a way to track dependency-only ports, so that if I
install port0 which requires port1 which in turn requires port2
and so on, deinstalling port0 will deinstall portN up to the
first one required by another port or
On Sat, Jul 07, 2007 at 09:57:59AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
The only reliable way to detect ports which have been installed as
a dependency is to create a database
*shudder* You just tripped over your own argument here. There are
plenty of ways that we could recognize a port that was
On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 09:57:59 -0700
Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally I think that portmaster's approach is the right one. If you
accidentally delete something that it turns out you really do need,
you can always install it again. [...]
I think that the point of this thread was
Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
Hi,
Is there a way to track dependency-only ports, so that if I install
port0 which requires port1 which in turn requires port2 and so on,
deinstalling port0 will deinstall portN up to the first one required by
another port or one I explicitely installed.
I realize
[LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
When I want to use Software that is not in ports, I get it into the ports tree.
I unfortunately don't have the time to maintain ports for every piece of
software I use.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2007-Jun-16 20:44:53 -0700, Stephen Hurd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Agreed, but this situation is not easy to detect with the automated
ports checks that are in place.
Impossible even since we're not using automated tools.
I was thinking of pointyhat
On 2007-Jun-16 20:44:53 -0700, Stephen Hurd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Agreed, but this situation is not easy to detect with the automated
ports checks that are in place.
Impossible even since we're not using automated tools.
I was thinking of pointyhat
Yes - but since it requires the
Peter Jeremy wrote:
For an opposing PoV: I often see ports that looks interesting or look
like a possible solution to a problem and will install the port to
have a play. If it turns out that it's not suitable, I would like to
be able to easily unistall the port and any dependencies it pulled in
Hi Stephen,
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 02:54:27AM -0700, Stephen Hurd wrote:
All of this rather assumes that *everything* is installed from ports.
1) install portXXX which requires SDL, so SDL gets sucked in
2) build thingYYY (which uses configure and only uses SDL if it's already
On 2007-Jun-16 13:41:54 +0200, Jeremie Le Hen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 02:54:27AM -0700, Stephen Hurd wrote:
All of this rather assumes that *everything* is installed from ports.
1) install portXXX which requires SDL, so SDL gets sucked in
2) build thingYYY (which
Stephen Hurd wrote:
Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 02:54:27AM -0700, Stephen Hurd wrote:
All of this rather assumes that *everything* is installed from
ports. 1) install portXXX which requires SDL, so SDL gets sucked in
2) build thingYYY (which uses
Peter Jeremy writes:
At the first place, I think such a situation occurs extremly rare.
For an opposing PoV: I often see ports that looks interesting or
look like a possible solution to a problem and will install the
port to have a play. If it turns out that it's not suitable, I
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 22:11:25 +1000
Peter Jeremy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
On 2007-Jun-15 01:22:38 +0200, Nikola Lecic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At the first place, I think such a situation occurs extremly rare.
For an opposing PoV: I often see ports that looks interesting or look
Hi,
Is there a way to track dependency-only ports, so that if I install
port0 which requires port1 which in turn requires port2 and so on,
deinstalling port0 will deinstall portN up to the first one required by
another port or one I explicitely installed.
I know ports-mgmt/pkg_cutleaves but this
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:06:02 +0200
Jeremie Le Hen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Is there a way to track dependency-only ports, so that if I install
port0 which requires port1 which in turn requires port2 and so on,
deinstalling port0 will deinstall portN up to the first one required
by
Nikola,
Thanks for your reply.
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 09:14:33AM +0200, Nikola Lecic wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:06:02 +0200
Jeremie Le Hen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a way to track dependency-only ports, so that if I install
port0 which requires port1 which in turn requires
18 matches
Mail list logo
