Overly restrictive checks in the make process

Bill Moran wmoran at collaborativefusion.com
Fri Jul 20 20:10:55 UTC 2007

In response to linimon at lonesome.com (Mark Linimon):

> On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 08:58:55AM -0400, Bill Moran wrote:
> > Why?  Is there a legitimate reason why the fetch process refuses to
> > download this?
> The intention of the logic is to warn a user, as soon as possible, that
> they are spending time on something that will wind up being IGNOREd if
> it is installed.  There is no logic there to try to figure out "later
> version of port"; it simply looks for "is IGNORE set?"
> Since some downloads take a long time, this does not seem too unreasonable
> to me.
> If we moved the check later, the process of trying to install a port that
> would be IGNOREd would be: spend time fetching and checksumming it, and
> only then tell the user that they had wasted their time.

I suspected there was some reasoning along that line.

> I think the best we could do is add something analagous to how
> DISABLE_VULNERABILITIES factors into it, and allow foot-shooting only
> if demanded, but turn it off by default.

That would be less annoying than having to constantly hack files
in /usr/ports/Mk ... :)

Even better would be for make to realize that it's only doing the
fetching, and do it anyway.  I don't know if this is possible,
though.  Sooner or later, the person running the system is going
to pull out the foot-gun (you can only protect them so much) and
waiting for a download that can't install is a comparatively small
bullet ...

Bill Moran
Collaborative Fusion Inc.

wmoran at collaborativefusion.com
Phone: 412-422-3463x4023

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list