portmaster not ask for port deletion

[Skip Ford]

Kevin Oberman wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:59:19 -0700
> > From: Doug Barton <dougb at FreeBSD.org>
> > Sender: owner-freebsd-stable at freebsd.org
> >
> > Skip Ford wrote:
> > > 
> > > 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.
> 
> portupgrade does the same thing except that you "hold" them instead of
> ignoring them. I believe that this is the correct way. I have ports
> (e.g. openoffice.org) that take a VERY long time to build or that are
> run in production out of a crontab (rancid). I don't want to
> inadvertently update these with the '-a' option. (Especially th latter
> case.) When I really, really want to do them, I use '-f'.
> 
> I think of '-f' as "YES, I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY want to update this
> port now and I expect you to believe me".

I don't really have a problem with portmaster asking to build +IGNOREME
ports, especially if that's how portupgrade works.

But, according to the man page, portmaster asks to upgrade IGNOREME
ports whenever '-a' is present.  That still just seems wrong to me, and
that's what bit me (holding up my build for a few hours is all.)
It's been years since I used portupgrade, but I thought I remembered
that +IGNOREME was designed just for that purpose:  to have portupgrade
automatically skip certain ports when it was invoked with '-a'.

-- 
Skip