make update broken

[Alex Dupre]

Erwin Lansing wrote:
> As I described earlier, SUP_UPDATE, CVS_UPDATE and PORTSNAP_UPDATE are
> mutually exclusive and cannot be used at the same time.  That it worked
> before was an artifact which has been fixed.  That is doesn't work
> anymore means the designed behaviour finally has been fixed and not
> broken :-)

As I said before, this is a non-sense: portsnap cannot be used to update
src, so it shouldn't prevent to use sup or cvs for such job. I don't
know who decided such mutually exclusive behavior, but actually is a
(wrong) priority behavior, so the design is still flawed in that sense
(if you define SUP_UPDATE and CVS_UPDATE you will use cvs, if you define
SUP_UPDATE and PORTSNAP_UPDATE you will get an error).

I vote for the enhanced priority behavior:

        src                   ports

SUP_UPDATE + SUPFILE      PORTSNAP_UPDATE
CVS_UPDATE                SUP_UPDATE + PORTSSUPFILE
                          CVS_UPDATE

> Your patch reintroduces PORTSNAP_UPDATE with a new meaning.

Previous meaning, not new. Where is defined the official PORTSNAP_UPDATE
meaning?

> While I
> dislike this workaround for an unsupported configuration, it may be
> needed for backwards compatability.  Please send-pr your patch, but
> please also add documentation of the new meaning of PORTSNAP_UPDATE.

I'll do it.

--
Alex Dupre