Subject: Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/doc
To: Dieter Baron <>
From: Greg Troxel <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 08/28/2007 08:17:32

Dieter Baron <> writes:

> In article <> Greg wrote:
> +       o Figure out a way to have "pkg_install -u", probably with a
> +         flag, preserve the value of the automatic tag.  We do not
> +         have consensus on the right behavior.
>   If the -A flag is given, preserve automatic, otherwise clear it.  If
> any dependencies are updated, preserve the automatic flag.  make
> replace would have to learn to pass -A when updating dependencies.

Currently -A is documented to set (rather than preserve) the automatic
flag.  So with -u it will preserve, and there would be no way to set.
It feels a bit awkward to have such a subtle behavior change.

Certainly things like make replace and pkg_rolling-replace can pass the
right flags, whatever they turn out to be.

How about a -U which is like -u, but also preserves automatic?  I
suppose that's "what gdt thinks -u ought to do", but it's also "what
tools doing automatic updates want".

>   That way, automaticity is preserved for dependencies, and is cleared
> for the package I actively update.  I think this is following the
> principle of least surprise, given how pkg_add without -u works.

I realize that it follows the principle of least surprise for you, but
we're having the discussion because for me that principle says that the
automatic flag should not be touched.  I use 'pkg_add -u' not because a
package I want isn't there, but because a package is out of date, as
part of a general update-old-packages maintenance activity.

Do you use 'pkg_add -u'?  When you do, are you updating outdated
packages because they are outdated, or do you view that as saying "I
want this package"?  Sorry if I'm just being dense, but I don't see how
someone doing 'pkg-add -u' would be doing other than maintenance.

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (NetBSD)