From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 21 15:54:00 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 4DA28106568B for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 15:54:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E96BF8FC15 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 15:53:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 501 invoked by uid 399); 21 Jan 2010 15:53:59 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.110?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 21 Jan 2010 15:53:59 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <4B58789B.4050303@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:54:03 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091204 Thunderbird/3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> References: <4B585FC6.4020602@quip.cz> In-Reply-To: <4B585FC6.4020602@quip.cz> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0 OpenPGP: id=D5B2F0FB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org" Subject: Re: portmaster and meaning of --show-work 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: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 15:54:00 -0000 On 1/21/2010 6:08 AM, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > Hi, > > manpage of portmaster says: > --show-work > show what dependent ports are, and are not installed (implies -t). > > It is right behavior of this option, but I think its name is confusing. Yes, I've never liked the name, but I've never been able to come up with something better. I've always sucked at naming things, which is sort of ironic for a DNS guy. :) > The name "show-work" is more like "show me what steps will be done", Yes, that's the idea. Also, if you look at the usage it is supposed to be clear that it's relevant to one port specified on the command line. So the idea is to show what "work" will be done to install that port. > for example in the following case "I want" to know what is installed > (and up to date), what is installed (but will be updated), and what is > not installed and will be installed. At the moment the --show-work feature lacks the ability to show you installed ports that need updating, yes. I agree that this is a desirable feature, more on that below. > example: > > list of available updates To get the whole list of things that need updating use 'portmaster -L', but I have a feeling that's not what you meant. > The next step (non default) can be interactive run of portmaster for > beginers with questions like: > > # portmaster php5-extensions > The following ports will be updated or installed > as part of update of php5-extensions: > [there will be similar list as above] > Do you really want to continue the update? Y/N: Funny you should mention that. :) The current svn version of portmaster (users/dougb/portmaster) has this exact feature, and it's almost ready to be committed to the port. It's currently on by default, and I just need to add a knob to disable it, and some code to override it if the only thing to do is the one port the user specified on the command line. I may get to that today, but $REALLIFE has been kicking my *hrmph* lately, so it may not be done till the weekend. I would appreciate it if you would give that a look and tell me if it suits your needs. It's likely that once I'm 100% convinced that this new feature is the right way to go that I will drop the --show-work option altogether. hth, Doug -- Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/ Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso