"portmanager -s" deletes ports?

[Matthew Navarre]

On May 23, 2007, at 10:19 AM, RW wrote:

> On Thu, 24 May 2007 00:25:31 +1000
> Norberto Meijome <freebsd at meijome.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 May 2007 09:53:39 +0200
>> Heinrich Rebehn <rebehn at ant.uni-bremen.de> wrote:
>>
>>> This is weird! A program that is supposed to show the *status* of
>>> installed ports should never arbitrarily *remove* ports.
>>
>> I agree that is not clear why it is removing ports without warning.
>
> Well, we don't actually know that.  I suspect that there was a  
> warning,

It shouldn't be removing *anything* without user confirmation. any  
other behavior is Broken and Wrong. Warnings are irrelevant if you  
just go ahead and do the dangerous thing you were warning about anyway.

> but it went to stdout and was eaten by "|grep OLD". Portmanger then
> waited for a y/n response for 5 minutes, and went with the default of
> deleting the port.

 From the portmanager(1) man page:
  -s or --status
	  status of installed ports

Says *nothing* about even the possibility of removing installed  
ports.  Just status. If -s is removing installed ports which have  
been moved/removed from the ports tree without confirmation then it's  
broken, plain and simple.

portmanager also has -s -l *AND* -sl options^Wcommands. -sl has not a  
thing to do with -s or -l. Broken by design. -sl should by convention  
be equivalent to -s -l, instead -sl maps to --show-leaves while -s  
maps to --status and --l maps to log. Lame. And there's no difference  
between 'switches' (options) and commands (imperatives).
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions- 
> unsubscribe at freebsd.org"