Re: Portupgrade -af question

Great! Is there any chance this gets included in the official portupgrade 
program?

Zoltan

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Collin J. Kreklow" <collin_at_kreklow.us>
To: <freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org>
Cc: "Zoltan Frombach" <tssajo_at_hotmail.com>; "Ruben de Groot" 
<mail25_at_bzerk.org>; "Kris Kennaway" <kris_at_obsecurity.org>; "David O'Brien" 
<obrien_at_freebsd.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 11:31 PM
Subject: Re: Portupgrade -af question


> On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 02:15:31PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 12:34:51PM -0700, Zoltan Frombach wrote:
>> > >Yes. Wouldn't it be a nice feature for "portupgrade -P" to install the
>> > >port instead of the package if any non-defaults were defined in
>> > >pkgtools.conf?
>> >
>> > If you really want to add this to portupgrade, it should be optional,
>> > though. Because someone might have a broken compiler or something and 
>> > just
>> > wants to install a binary package quickly. In that case it should be
>> > possible to force a binary package installation regardless of what's 
>> > inside
>> > the pkgtools.conf file. Don't you agree?
>>
>> 'portupgrade -PP' can still be used for that.
>
> I believe that the attached patch will cause portupgrade to build a port
> when make options are specified either in pkgtools.conf or with the -m
> option, unless -PP/--use-packages-only is specified.  I am by no means a
> Ruby expert, but this appears to do the correct thing for all the
> combinations of MAKE_ARGS, -m, -P and -PP I could come up with.
>
> Collin