Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

add option to delete portstree when created with -F #469

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

danel1
Copy link

@danel1 danel1 commented May 17, 2017

When creating a portstree with the following options:
"poudriere ports -c -F -p name"
everything get's created correctly and the zfs is also made.
But since the following two commit's, it's inpossible to delete the portstree with poudriere. The only way would be to delete and clean up everything by hand, which is not a nice way and the way you want to do it.

See:
ba02294
and
7ca6e58

@bdrewery
Copy link
Member

Thanks for the patch. I'm not fond of another flag here. The root problem is that -F does something and never records the fact that it did it. If -F was used (without method - or none) then it needs to automatically clean up.

There's far too many flags and options here. -m none and -f none do totally different things, and -F is a hack.

Looking over this more, it seems that using -F will actually record the method as -, so 7ca6e58 may just need to be reverted instead.

@bdrewery
Copy link
Member

For reference, further discussion at ba02294.

@danel1
Copy link
Author

danel1 commented May 19, 2017

True, i just tought this would also be a fast way to patch this, instead of completely rewrite the ports.sh-Script.. :-) But indeed, if a portstree is created with "-F", it always uses method "-". So reverting 7ca6e58 would be the most simple and "best" option until we find a better solution, i think.

@bdrewery
Copy link
Member

I missed saying it, but I am tempted to rip out all of this obscure stuff and simply the interface. And then add stubs to disallow the old ones.

@bdrewery bdrewery added this to the 3.1.20 milestone Jun 9, 2017
@danel1
Copy link
Author

danel1 commented Jun 14, 2017

Thanks for adding the milestone @bdrewery! I hope you can fix this in 3.1.20. Have a good day

@bdrewery
Copy link
Member

Yup I am going to take a fresh look at it in the next week.

bdrewery added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 31, 2017
This reverts commit c8e16f3.

The -m flag is for the ports tree *update method*, not *filesystem
method*.  How the ports tree is updated should have no bearing on
how the filesystem is treated.  The -m flag was never documented as
the "system ports tree" feature and thus did not resolve #250.

Issue #250
Issue #469

Conflicts:
	src/share/poudriere/ports.sh
bdrewery added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 31, 2017
-M <path> must also be specified.

- This implies '-f none' and '-F'.
- The older '-m none' is treated like 'null' for the purposes of 'ports -d'
  and 'ports -u'.
- 'ports -u' will not update the files.
- 'ports -d' will not delete the files.
- '-F' is not supported with '-m null'

Issue #250
Issue #469
Issue #353

Conflicts:
	src/bin/poudriere.8
	src/share/poudriere/ports.sh
bdrewery added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 31, 2017
bdrewery added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 31, 2017
This reverts commit ba02294.

The -m flag is for the ports tree *update method*, not *filesystem
method*.  How the ports tree is updated should have no bearing on
how the filesystem is treated.  The -m flag was never documented as
the "system ports tree" feature and thus did not resolve #250.

Issue #250
Issue #469

Conflicts:
	src/share/poudriere/ports.sh
bdrewery added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 31, 2017
-M <path> must also be specified.

- This implies '-f none' and '-F'.
- The older '-m none' is treated like 'null' for the purposes of 'ports -d'
  and 'ports -u'.
- 'ports -u' will not update the files.
- 'ports -d' will not delete the files.
- '-F' is not supported with '-m null'

Issue #250
Issue #469
Issue #353
bdrewery added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 31, 2017
@bdrewery
Copy link
Member

This is fixed for newly-created trees after these fixes.

@bdrewery bdrewery closed this Jul 31, 2017
@danel1
Copy link
Author

danel1 commented Aug 3, 2017

Thanks :) Will take a look at it and test when the new version will be released.
Do you have a timeline when you plan to release 3.1.20?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants