Subject: Re: make update == make broken
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Sean Davis <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/05/2005 05:43:38
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 01:28:23AM -0700, Aaron J. Grier wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 04:57:09PM -0400, Sean Davis wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 03:20:03PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> > > E.g. you seem to want KDE badly enough that you're quite upset when
> > > you're forced to delete it because it's inter-dependent on something
> > > else you need to upgrade, and then you're left without it when it
> > > fails to build again.
> > when I'm forced to delete it? I think "when pkgsrc deletes it behind
> > my back when I tried to update a totally unrelated package" would be
> > more accurate.
> apparently those "totally unrelated packages" _ARE_ related. have you
> figured out why, yet?
No, because I shouldn't have to. pkgsrc should follow the POLA and *warn the
user* if it's going to delete a whole bunch of crap just to update one
package that has, in the past, almost always updated just itself when
getting hit with the update target. I fail to see what would be so hard
about making that change. show-needs-update is all well and good, but it
doesn't do anything for you if you just type 'make update' expecting it to
update the one package.
And the problem of backing up the packages if they're all going to be
deleted prior to building so that they can be reinstalled if they don't
build still needs to be addressed, for those of us who can't afford a
seperate build machine.