portmaster not ask for port deletion

[Doug Barton]

Skip Ford wrote:
> Doug Barton wrote:
>> Yes, unfortunately it's not omniscient. :)
> 
> Well, to be honest, it wouldn't need to be.  It would just need a flag
> to know when nobody is present from whom to request input, and then take
> the default action. 

That's never going to happen. The default choice is not going to be
the right one for some percentage of users.

> But, if all input is requested during config, then
> that's pointless.

Yes, that's the goal.

>> Second, without knowing what command line you used I couldn't tell you
>> for sure what happened of course, but assuming you used some
>> combination of '-af' what you saw was expected behavior. There is a
>> conflict (I think a fairly obvious one) between the -f option and
>> +IGNOREME. Since different users would have different ideas of how to
>> resolve that conflict, portmaster takes the safe path and asks you.
> 
> Well, it wasn't immediately obvious to me that someone would ever want to
> mark a port ignore and then want to upgrade it.  So, it just seemed like a
> silly question to me (and still does to be honest, unless that's the
> behavior of portupgrade you're trying to match.)

I honestly don't know what portupgrade does in that situation. There
are at least 2 classes of users that I am trying to "protect" in this
case:
1. Users who believe that -f should override +IGNOREME
2. Users who create an +IGNOREME file for some reason, then forget
it's there.

One of the problems with writing a tool like portmaster is that a lot
of users have very strong ideas about how it should work, and very
clear reasons for why they think that their way of looking at it is
the right way. :)  Unfortunately, there is usually an equal number of
users on the other side who feel just as strongly.


Doug

-- 

    This .signature sanitized for your protection