Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:00:04 +0000 From: RW <list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portmanager confusion Message-ID: <200603132000.38045.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> In-Reply-To: <17428.48090.416936.142264@roam.psg.com> References: <17428.48090.416936.142264@roam.psg.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 13 March 2006 00:24, Randy Bush wrote: > running thinkpad t41 i386 on -current > > two questions > > o how do i tell portmanager to force the single port, and > not everything on which it depends as in -f? Portmanager isn't really intended for that kind of tinkering. And you probably shouldn't be using it if you don't like the idea of lots of ports, that aren't out of date, being rebuilt. > o why did portmanager not rebuild in the following case. > as i can not force, then who is responsible to see ports > with changes are rebuilt? > > randy > > cvsup showed > > Edit ports/print/acroread7/Makefile > Add delta 1.17 2006.03.11.19.43.09 hrs > > but > > # portmanager print/acroread7 > .. >00001 have:acroread7-7.0.1,1 /print/acroread7 CURRENT Portmanager has done the right thing; the port was not out of date. The port maintainer modified the makefile without bumping the portrevision number. This means the change had no significant runtime impact. It might just be a spelling correction in a comment.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200603132000.38045.list-freebsd-2004>