Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 13:13:58 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Bill Moran <wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>, Kent Stewart <kstewart@owt.com> Subject: Re: Overly restrictive checks in the make process Message-ID: <20070726171358.GA56272@rot26.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20070721062053.91dd23bb.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> References: <20070720085855.99fb2109.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> <20070720160749.54fec301.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> <20070721023933.GB24593@soaustin.net> <200707201950.21868.kstewart@owt.com> <20070721062053.91dd23bb.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 06:20:53AM -0400, Bill Moran wrote: > Kent Stewart <kstewart@owt.com> wrote: > > > > On Friday 20 July 2007, Mark Linimon wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 04:07:49PM -0400, Bill Moran wrote: > > > > Even better would be for make to realize that it's only doing the > > > > fetching, and do it anyway. > > > > > > That still doesn't help with the problem of a user who starts a 10MB > > > download that won't work on his architecture or OS release. The code > > > is all the same. This is the aggravation we are trying to prevent. > > > > That still doesn't address the concern or improve the system downtime > > that a pkg_delete, make install allows. If you can't run something, you > > don't have any downtime but to have to pkg_delete before you start the > > tarball fetch can be really long on some ports. > > It's certainly a tradeoff. Either way you do it, there are practical > scenarios where a user is inconvenienced. > > Perhaps an environmental override is the best route. NO_IGNORE=yes > or something similar? Yes, use the NO_IGNORE variable (which just passed its tenth birthday) to override IGNORE checks you disagree with. Kris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070726171358.GA56272>