From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 25 14:03:48 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47F311065672; Sat, 25 Dec 2010 14:03:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alex@stangl.us) Received: from stangl.us (stangl.us [66.93.193.95]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 138B48FC0C; Sat, 25 Dec 2010 14:03:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from scout.stangl.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scout.stangl.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAAF1B859; Sat, 25 Dec 2010 07:44:27 -0600 (CST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at stangl.us Received: from stangl.us ([127.0.0.1]) by scout.stangl.us (scout.stangl.us [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NgHzsabcajBO; Sat, 25 Dec 2010 07:44:26 -0600 (CST) Received: by scout.stangl.us (Postfix, from userid 1001) id C1DEDB856; Sat, 25 Dec 2010 07:44:26 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 07:44:26 -0600 From: Alex Stangl To: David Demelier Message-ID: <20101225134426.GA92270@scout.stangl.us> References: <4D15D275.6000308@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D15D275.6000308@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: dougb@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portmaster: print /usr/ports/UPDATING on update X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 14:03:48 -0000 On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 12:16:05PM +0100, David Demelier wrote: > A lot of people always forget to read UPDATING (that's normal we'll are > humans). > > Each entry in UPDATING is like "AFFECTS: users of net-mgmt/flowd" so if > an update of net-mgmt/flowd is available and a *recent* entry in > UPDATING talks about then print the message. > > This can prevent a lot of breakage and useless noise on lists. What do > you think ? That's essentially what ports-mgmt/portupdate-scan tries to do. The problem is that UPDATING was intended to be a human-readable file so there is no consistent usage of the AFFECTS: line patterns. You have deal with AFFECTS lines that you cannot machine-parse. You have to deal with moved ports, different wildcard naming conventions, and other forms of ambiguity. portupdate-scan uses Perl regex to try to cope with this, but doesn't do a perfect job. Unless the format of UPDATING gets tightened up to allow it to be better understood by machine, I'm not sure it's worth bloating portmaster with this functionality since it won't be able to do a perfect job of it. It could result in list noise about false positives and false negatives in this area. Merry Christmas, Alex