Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 14 Oct 2013 19:51:04 -0600 (MDT)
From:      Warren Block <>
To:        Scott Ballantyne <>
Subject:   Re: Advice sought on Portmaster -Faf and deleted ports
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References:  <> <> <> <> <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Mon, 14 Oct 2013, Scott Ballantyne wrote:

> On Mon, 14 oct 2013, Warren Block <> wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Oct 2013, Scott Ballantyne wrote:
>>>> What errors, exactly?
>>> Well, for example:
>>> portmaster -Faf
>>> it starts to fetch a bunch of files
>>> it finds a port which has been deleted, such as
>>> linux-base-fc4
>>> and it says, "linux-base-fc4" has been deleted.
>>> terminating
>>> terminating
>>> terminating
>>> etc.
>> That's correct.  linux_base-fc4 is long gone (years), replaced by
>> linux_base-f10.  portmaster sees no way to upgrade that port, so
>> evidently it quits.
> I understand why portmaster quits that port. It does seem like a bit
> of over-kill to quit updating ALL ports because one is long
> gone. Seems like it could do the others.

Some of them.  It could not update any ports that depend on missing 
ports, which conflicts with the "-a" meaning "all".

>> If you have ports that far out of date, the upgrade process is going to
>> be long.  Ports where the system does not know the replacement will have
>> to be handled manually.
> Actually, the last time I updated my ports was when I installed 9.0,
> and I used the portmaster 'nuke all ports' method I was trying to
> day. Since then, several dozen ports of been 'deleted' or 'renamed',
> not just the linux_base-fc4. Seems in the case of ports which have
> been renamed or replaced, this could in fact be simply automated in
> most cases.

I think it does handle renamed ports.  Whether the ones it does not 
handle are due to missing functionality or because they are difficult or 
impossible to handle, don't know.

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>