Overly restrictive checks in the make process

[Bill Moran]

In response to Kris Kennaway <kris at obsecurity.org>:

> On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 06:20:53AM -0400, Bill Moran wrote:
> > Kent Stewart <kstewart at owt.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday 20 July 2007, Mark Linimon wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 04:07:49PM -0400, Bill Moran wrote:
> > > > > Even better would be for make to realize that it's only doing the
> > > > > fetching, and do it anyway.
> > > >
> > > > That still doesn't help with the problem of a user who starts a 10MB
> > > > download that won't work on his architecture or OS release.  The code
> > > > is all the same.  This is the aggravation we are trying to prevent.
> > > 
> > > That still doesn't address the concern or improve the system downtime 
> > > that a pkg_delete, make install allows. If you can't run something, you 
> > > don't have any downtime but to have to pkg_delete before you start the 
> > > tarball fetch can be really long on some ports.
> > 
> > It's certainly a tradeoff.  Either way you do it, there are practical
> > scenarios where a user is inconvenienced.
> > 
> > Perhaps an environmental override is the best route.  NO_IGNORE=yes
> > or something similar?
> 
> Yes, use the NO_IGNORE variable (which just passed its tenth birthday)
> to override IGNORE checks you disagree with.

Huh ... here I am bitching and that's been there all along ...

-- 
Bill Moran
Collaborative Fusion Inc.
http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/

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