From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 31 12:16:31 2008 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 0C5B5106564A for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:16:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wmoran@potentialtech.com) Received: from mail.potentialtech.com (internet.potentialtech.com [66.167.251.6]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D10D38FC0C for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:16:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wmoran@potentialtech.com) Received: from vanquish.ws.pitbpa0.priv.collaborativefusion.com (pr40.pitbpa0.pub.collaborativefusion.com [206.210.89.202]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.potentialtech.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 95D94EBC0A; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:16:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:16:28 -0400 From: Bill Moran To: Doug Barton Message-Id: <20080731081628.cfb49084.wmoran@potentialtech.com> In-Reply-To: <48914065.5020901@FreeBSD.org> References: <20080730085123.81542622.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> <20080730174510.ab0871a3.wmoran@potentialtech.com> <20080730183307.925ade48.wmoran@potentialtech.com> <48914065.5020901@FreeBSD.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.5.0 (GTK+ 2.12.11; i386-portbld-freebsd7.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Marcin Wisnicki , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Problems with portupgrade && xscreensaver-gnome 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, 31 Jul 2008 12:16:31 -0000 In response to Doug Barton : > Bill Moran wrote: > > It's a combination of a number of issues: > > 1) The ports infrastructure shouldn't let you set options that don't make > > sense. > > I think that one could argue that it should be _hard_ to set options > that "don't make sense," but I don't think it should be impossible. you > have to keep in mind that we cater to a very diverse user community, > from rank beginners to advanced hackers. True. My opinion: A GUI that _prevents_ novice users from selecting incompatible options is a good idea. Expert users can always manually tweak /var/db/ports/ files if they want to override those restrictions. > > 2) Why is portupgrade dying on a warning message? Why does a poor > > decision on one port prevent everything on my system from upgrading? > > For the same reason that portmaster dies on errors, neither program is > omniscient. :) If ports tools hit a point where it's not clear how to > proceed they _should_ stop and get user input. The next thing the users > generally say is that it should "somehow" proceed with the rest of the > upgrade, finish things that don't rely on the broken bits, etc. > Unfortunately that is quite a bit harder to do than you might think, > although patches are always welcome. Understood. But keep in mind that this was not an error, it was a warning. Perhaps the ports infrastructure doesn't differentiate between those two as much as I think. > > 3) The error from portupgrade does not immediately point me to the easy > > solution, it tricks me into thinking I have to hack the Makefile. > > I don't actually think that the error message you're referring to is > from portupgrade, I think it's from the port itself. I can see that. -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com