From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 31 05:54:54 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 C65FD106564A for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 05:54:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cm@therek.net) Received: from lux.therek.net (lux.therek.net [64.85.172.243]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 903588FC08 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 05:54:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cm@therek.net) Received: from [10.3.81.80] (gate01.polsat.net.pl [193.164.142.33]) (authenticated bits=0) by lux.therek.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n6V5spJV014544 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-DSS-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 07:54:53 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4A728725.70003@therek.net> Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 07:54:45 +0200 From: Cezary Morga User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org References: <1248027417.14210.110.camel@neo.cse.buffalo.edu> <200907232335.54973.mel.flynn+fbsd.current@mailing.thruhere.net> <4A6FF5FA.5010904@FreeBSD.org> <200907282342.25038.mel.flynn+fbsd.current@mailing.thruhere.net> <4A707534.8000808@FreeBSD.org> <20090729170601.GA2841@tafi.alm.flutnet.org> <4A709981.80600@FreeBSD.org> <20090729200013.GB2841@tafi.alm.flutnet.org> <4A70ACD2.6030804@FreeBSD.org> <20090729203552.GC2841@tafi.alm.flutnet.org> In-Reply-To: <20090729203552.GC2841@tafi.alm.flutnet.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: portmaster -R (Was: Re: HEADS-UP: Shared Library Versions bumped...) 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: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 05:54:55 -0000 Alson van der Meulen pisze: > * Doug Barton [2009-07-29 22:10]: >> I'm planning to remove the -u option altogether. It actually does very >> little now, and certainly does not do what most users expect it should >> do. If I may chip in here on a similar note. I'm currently looking for a port management tool that might replace good ol' portinstall/portupgrade tools in my toolbox. Portmaster looks promising but I noticed that it doesn't seem to take BATCH=yes in my /etc/make.conf into consideration. So, is it me or there's something more I have to do? -- Cezary Morga