portmaster v2.20 + request for (continue) feature improvement.

[Doug Barton]

On 03/31/10 08:10, jhell wrote:
> 
> Dear Doug, ;)
> 
> It has crossed my mind through a couple upgrades the idea to implement a
> way for portmaster to continue a upgrade if the package set that is
> being upgraded have no dependencies on per say a package set that
> previously failed to upgrade.

I've said many times that I'm not interested in implementing that
feature. In my opinion a failed build/install is something that requires
operator attention. While it is theoretically possible to work out the
dependency graph in advance, it's not possible for portmaster to know
the priorities of the human doing the upgrade.

> Please correct me if I am wrong but when the recent ports update that
> happened with png- I also had other ports that were out of date that
> needed upgrades that did not depend on png- or one of the packages that
> depended on something that depended png-. When one of the packages that
> depended on png- failed, portmaster then terminated leaving me to either
> specify package by package till the png- & dependents were fixed or
> provide a manual list of ports I knew could be upgraded without failing.
> 
> Do you think it would be practical to build per say an array of packages
> that should be upgraded together that would result in portmaster to be
> able to continue with ports that it knows won't come back to a port that
> failed ?
> 
> For instance mysql- needed to be upgraded but had no other dependencies
> that lead back to a port that depended on png-. This left my machine in
> a complete idle state while I was hoping! to use build time while I was
> not at the machine so actual usage time would not be affected by any
> type of load.

I look forward to reviewing your patches to implement this feature.


Doug

-- 

	... and that's just a little bit of history repeating.
			-- Propellerheads

	Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
	a domain name makeover!    http://SupersetSolutions.com/