From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 20 05:25:42 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1628016A4CE for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 05:25:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC02E43D53 for ; Thu, 20 May 2004 05:25:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from adam.mclaurin@gmx.net) Received: from 146-115-126-186.c3-0.arl-ubr1.sbo-arl.ma.cable.rcn.com ([146.115.126.186] helo=jake) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 3.35 #7) id 1BQmc2-0004me-00 for ports@freebsd.org; Thu, 20 May 2004 08:25:26 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 08:25:26 -0400 From: Adam McLaurin To: ports@freebsd.org Message-Id: <20040520082526.0e5362c1.adam.mclaurin@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <86k6z7e7uv.knu@iDaemons.org> References: <20040520025535.41b274ac.adam.mclaurin@gmx.net> <86k6z7e7uv.knu@iDaemons.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.9-gtk2-20040229 (GTK+ 2.4.1; i386-portbld-freebsd5.2.1) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: portupgrade misbehavior X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 12:25:42 -0000 On Thu, 20 May 2004 19:00:24 +0900 "Akinori MUSHA" wrote: > At Thu, 20 May 2004 02:55:35 -0400, > Adam McLaurin wrote: > > -# portupgrade -a -x "kdebase*" -x "apache*" -x "mod_php4*" -f > > galeon2 > > Separating it into the following two invocations will work: > > # portupgrade -a -x "kdebase*" -x "apache*" -x "mod_php4*" > # portupgrade -f galeon2 > > > Why the h*ll did portupgrade try to recompile zsh? I can't think of > > any > > logical explanation for this behavior. Perhaps I am missing > > something > > simple here; or perhaps I stumbled across a bug in portupgrade (or > > even > > ruby) ? > > It is because the -f flag is effective globally, it does not work just > against the following ones. Only -m and -o are contextual. Ah yes, that makes sense .. I always thought -f was contextual; re-reading the manpage, I see that I was wrong. Whoops! However, perhaps a contextual force isn't a bad idea for a future feature of portupgrade? What do you think? Thanks knu! -- Adam