portmaster deletes failed ports

[Doug Barton]

Freddie Cash wrote:

> Good.  Programs should do what the user tells them to, not try and
> guess what the user might want and try to be overly helpful in doing
> strange and mysterious things.  If the install fails, then error out
> with a nice message.  Let the user decide what to do after that.

I'm glad someone agrees with me, thanks. :)

> This is why blindly running -a is not recommended.  A good habit to
> get into is to develop an upgrade procedure that does not include -a. 
> Something along the lines of:
>   - portsnap fetch update
>   - portaudit -Fda
>   - pkg_version -vl '<' > ports-with-updates

You can do something similar with portmaster using the example in the man page.

>   - more ports-with-updates
>   - more /usr/ports/UPDATING
>   - portmaster -b port1 port2 port3 port4 ...

This isn't actually possible, you have to specify one port at a time,
although portmaster port1 ; portmaster port2; .... would work. Changing the
logic to take a list of ports to update probably isn't hard, but with all
the other feature requests here lately, I haven't gotten to it.

I did just post about the new version I have available for testing though. I
chose to go the compromise route of always making a backup package (unless
the user specifies the new -B option) and only keeping it if the user
specifies -b. That along with a helpful message should help alleviate this
issue.

> I thought portmaster used config-recursive starting with 1.6 or
> thereabouts, so you only go through the config screens once at the
> start of the run.

I cache the list of ports that have already been config'ed, so you only have
to do it once per port, no matter how many times that port is called as a
dependency.

hth,

Doug

-- 

    This .signature sanitized for your protection