Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 14:35:45 -0600 From: Paul Schmehl <pauls@utdallas.edu> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portupgrade and gnome Message-ID: <0638B5CC479C6DF9CCE93EAA@[10.110.3.244]> In-Reply-To: <440F3A30.9010206@vonostingroup.com> References: <65F8D6A1C5A07B2BF1E173BA@[10.110.3.244]> <440F3A30.9010206@vonostingroup.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--On Wednesday, March 08, 2006 3:10 PM -0500 Frank Laszlo <laszlof@vonostingroup.com> wrote: > Paul Schmehl wrote: >> Is there any way that portupgrade could be made "smart" enough to not >> upgrade the gnome ports? Since you have to download and run the >> upgrade script (and why isn't that part of the ports anyway?), it >> doesn't make a great deal of sense to run portupgrade and then run the >> gnome upgrade script, yet it's impossible to tell from portupgrade >> (when it's running) what are gnome dependencies and what are not. >> >> Seems like a lot of duplication of effort could be easily fixed by >> either downloading and calling the script (and exiting portupgrade?) >> or simply ignoring any "gnome" ports. >> > > Isnt this what pkgtools.conf is for? > If you're asking for my personal opinion, I would say no. I see pkgtools.conf as something that allows you to "personalize" your ports. This is an issue that affects every single user that installs gnome. I think it should be handled at a global level. Perhaps editing pkgtools.conf is the "right" way to go about it, but, if so, it should be done by the port or be default settings in pkgtool.conf. Paul Schmehl (pauls@utdallas.edu) Adjunct Information Security Officer University of Texas at Dallas AVIEN Founding Member http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0638B5CC479C6DF9CCE93EAA>