From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 25 22:26:45 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DE2B106568E for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:26:45 +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 2A1EB8FC1C for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:26:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 8501 invoked by uid 399); 25 Aug 2009 22:26:41 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO foreign.dougb.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 25 Aug 2009 22:26:41 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <4A94651B.1030501@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:26:35 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090822) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Skip Ford References: <4A92F00E.1040705@FreeBSD.org> <20090825100052.9d963401.matheus@eternamente.info> <20090825185513.GA1046@menantico.com> In-Reply-To: <20090825185513.GA1046@menantico.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 OpenPGP: id=D5B2F0FB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Nenhum_de_Nos Subject: Re: portmaster not ask for port deletion X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:26:45 -0000 Skip Ford wrote: > Nenhum_de_Nos wrote: >> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:54:54 -0700 >> Doug Barton wrote: >> >>> It sounds to me like what you're seeing is portmaster asking whether >>> or not you want to delete the distfiles after an upgrade. The easiest >>> way to deal with that is to use '-aD' and then when it's done use >>> either --clean-distfiles or --clean-distfiles-all. Once again, see the >>> man page for more information on those options. >> I just want to fire the command and it work alone till is done. > > Good luck with unattended runs of portmaster. That's the only real > remaining shortfall of portmaster, IMO. It still needs hand-holding > to finish its job often times. Yes, unfortunately it's not omniscient. :) > For example, I just did the big rebuild you're getting ready for. > I spent a good 45 minutes updating ports.conf beforehand, fetching a good > number of distfiles in advance, and configuring ports before starting the > massive build. I also told portmaster to ignore 3 ports (1 broken, 2 > would most likely fail to build for one reason or another.) > > So, I started the build and left. Came back 7 hours later and portmaster > had barely run an hour and was stuck waiting for input. What was so > important? It wanted to know if it should go ahead an update the 3 ports > that I had just explicitly told it not to upgrade 10 minutes before I > started it (by using .IGNOREME files). First, you mean +IGNOREME files, just to be sure no one is confused. Second, without knowing what command line you used I couldn't tell you for sure what happened of course, but assuming you used some combination of '-af' what you saw was expected behavior. There is a conflict (I think a fairly obvious one) between the -f option and +IGNOREME. Since different users would have different ideas of how to resolve that conflict, portmaster takes the safe path and asks you. You only have to answer the question once, during the config phase. Once it starts building things you should not have any more prompts from portmaster. Looking at the man page I see that the dividing line between when to expect interaction and when not to is not as clear as it could be. I'll update that for the next version. In any case, I find it highly unlikely that it ran for a full hour before prompting for the answer. On my system with over 500 ports installed the full run through the config phase takes just a little over 6 minutes. It might take you a little longer than that if you have a lot of OPTIONS dialogs to make choices on, but those would have been pretty obvious. My guess is that you literally started it and walked away. Portmaster does everything it can to get all of the user interaction out of the way in the config phase so that once it starts building there is nothing for the user to do. Of course if there is a problem in the ports infrastructure itself portmaster can't help with that but obviously the goal is to keep those to a minimum. :) hope this helps, Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection