Re: Portupgrade -af question

From: Collin J. Kreklow <collin_at_kreklow.us>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 01:31:45 -0500
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

Received on Thu Oct 28 2004 - 04:31:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:19 UTC