portmaster deletes failed ports

Doug Barton dougb at FreeBSD.org
Fri Sep 8 19:55:59 UTC 2006

Craig Boston wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 08:17:29PM -0700, Freddie Cash wrote:
>> 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. 
> -a isn't so bad when combined with -i so it prompts you about each
> port.  Of course that's not very automated, but recent versions of
> portmaster seem to cache the yes/no responses from the config stage now
> and batch all the actual builds together, which is very nice.

Yes, that's accurate.

> I'm in the habit of always using -i anyway, since portmaster has an
> unforuntate habit of trying to install ports that it thinks are
> dependencies but in reality aren't required (bison 1.x comes to mind, I
> also recall having trouble with it trying to install win32-codecs
> when it was already present).

That problem should be greatly alleviated with the new version I just posted
for testing, which does not use all-depends-list as its source of
dependencies for a port. I should also note that it's not portmaster that's
trying to install anything, it's the ports themselves that specify these
dependencies. However, using the more limited list should reduce the number
of spurious things that get built and installed.

> Actually pkgdb -F can help clean up incorrect / inconsistent dependency
> information in the /var/db/pkg/*/+REQUIRED_BY and +CONTENTS files, not
> just portupgrade's internal database.

portmaster doesn't use the +REQUIRED_BY file for anything meaningful until
after it's relatively sure that it's up to date. There are slightly more
dependencies on the +CONTENTS files, but the ways that those go stale
shouldn't usually affect portmaster.

> That and pkg_cutleaves was the only reason I kept ruby installed for so
> long, but portmaster -l is good enough to not bother installing it on
> new boxes. 

The new -e and -s options should help make that maintenance task as well.

> Though I still think "leaf ports" and "root ports" should be
> listed together.

I have gone back and forth on that a few times myself. Does anyone else have
an opinion?

> PS, in case I haven't said it before, many thanks to Doug for writing
> portmaster! 

Thanks for the kind words!



    This .signature sanitized for your protection

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list