Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 14:53:37 -0700 From: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: portmaster deletes failed ports Message-ID: <4003909E-9952-4C59-BCE3-5CA6B421CFC3@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <4501CAC9.3060607@FreeBSD.org> References: <44FC4303.4050600@gmail.com> <200609042118.09134.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> <44FC9527.6000802@gmail.com> <200609050048.57718.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> <20060905104831.GF89080@leia.lambermont.dyndns.org> <44FDAF66.7090701@FreeBSD.org> <op.tff6qjqvzq5pz4@sovaio.netoldies.com> <60494.24.71.118.34.1157599049.squirrel@webmail.sd73.bc.ca> <20060907042838.GA61492@nowhere> <4501CAC9.3060607@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sep 8, 2006, at 12:55 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > Craig Boston wrote: >> Though I still think "leaf ports" and "root ports" should be >> listed together. > > I have gone back and forth on that a few times myself. Does anyone > else have an opinion? Whether a port is a leaf port or not does not seem especially important to me. Whether a port has been installed explicitly by the user or whether it has been installed as a build-time or runtime dependencies is important, especially as time passes and the dependencies change. I will always want to have all of the ports I've explicitly installed present & updated, and I will always want the runtime dependencies for those ports installed & updated as needed, but I'd be happier to have outdated dependencies that aren't needed anymore be deleted rather than updated. >> PS, in case I haven't said it before, many thanks to Doug for >> writing portmaster! > > Thanks for the kind words! I'm not using portmaster yet, as portupgrade has worked OK for me thus far, but I would second Craig's opinion, and I would suspect that I'm going to try switching over soon. -- -Chuck
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4003909E-9952-4C59-BCE3-5CA6B421CFC3>