# Expired port



## xy16644 (Apr 5, 2014)

When I run a `portmaster -a` I receive the following error:


```
===>>> Gathering distinfo list for installed ports

===>>> Starting check of installed ports for available updates

===>>> The www/baikal port has been deleted: Has expired: No more public distfiles
===>>> Aborting update

===>>> Killing background jobs
Terminated
===>>> Exiting
```

So now the only way I can get all my other ports to update is by running `portmaster -a -x baikal`.

Is there anything I can do to permanently exclude this port from being updated in the future?

Also, when I need to update many ports at once I find I have to watch the ports being updated as some ports ask if it must delete the distfile. I then have to hit Y to say yes I want to have the file deleted and then the updating of the next port continues. Is there a way I can tell portmaster to answer Y to ALL the ports I need updated so I don't have to sit watching the ports be updated and having to hit Y after a port has been updated?


----------



## fonz (Apr 5, 2014)

xy16644 said:
			
		

> Is there anything I can do to permanently exclude this port from being updated in the future?


Do you still have a distfile or work directory for it?



			
				xy16644 said:
			
		

> Is there a way I can tell portmaster to answer Y to ALL the ports I need updated so I don't have to sit watching the ports be updated and having to hit Y after a port has been updated?


The -d option (or ALWAYS_SCRUB_DISTFILES=dopt in portmaster.rc).


----------



## xy16644 (Apr 5, 2014)

fonz said:
			
		

> xy16644 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I can see the following file for Baikal in: /usr/ports/distfiles/baikal-regular-0.2.6.tgz. Does this need to be deleted?

Aaah, so just running `portmaster` with the -d switch will delete the distfiles automatically?


----------



## fonz (Apr 5, 2014)

xy16644 said:
			
		

> I can see the following file for Baikal in: /usr/ports/distfiles/baikal-regular-0.2.6.tgz. Does this need to be deleted?


No! Keep it.

If you can build this thing directly from source (not using the ports framework) and install it into /opt, you can delete/uninstall the port and Portmaster won't bother you about it any more.



			
				xy16644 said:
			
		

> Aaah, so just running `portmaster` with the -d switch will delete the distfiles automatically?


Yes. Or use /usr/local/etc/portmaster.rc.


----------



## xy16644 (Apr 5, 2014)

Surely there's a way to have Portmaster permanently ignore a port from being updated? I know I can run Portmaster with the -x switch but it's just a pain.


----------



## fonz (Apr 5, 2014)

xy16644 said:
			
		

> Surely there's a way to have Portmaster permanently ignore a port from being updated? I know I can run Portmaster with the -x switch but it's just a pain.


Have you tried creating a +IGNOREME file? I haven't tried this myself, but it's mentioned in the Portmaster manual, in the FILES section.


----------



## xy16644 (Apr 5, 2014)

fonz said:
			
		

> xy16644 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wasn't aware of the +IGNOREME option. I was going to give it a try but when I looked in /var/db/pkg/ I couldn't find any directory with the baikal name?


----------



## fonz (Apr 5, 2014)

xy16644 said:
			
		

> I wasn't aware of the +IGNOREME option. I was going to give it a try but when I looked in /var/db/pkg/ I couldn't find any directory with the baikal name?


You're probably using pkg, then. However, I suppose you could just try to create the directory and file
`mkdir /var/db/pkg/baikal-<version#>`
`touch /var/db/pkg/baikal-<version#>/+IGNOREME`
and see if Portmaster picks up on it.


----------



## pkubaj (Apr 6, 2014)

I wonder why this port was deleted. Looking at www/baikal, I can see there are supposedly no more public distfiles. But here they are: https://github.com/jeromeschneider/Baikal/releases , so it seems like a mistake to delete it.


----------



## trh411 (Apr 6, 2014)

pkubaj said:
			
		

> I wonder why this port was deleted. Looking at www/baikal, I can see there are supposedly no more public distfiles. But here they are: https://github.com/jeromeschneider/Baikal/releases , so it seems like a mistake to delete it.


The operative word is public. The site you referenced is a private site of an individual github user.


----------



## pkubaj (Apr 6, 2014)

trh411 said:
			
		

> pkubaj said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Theoretically yes, but this "individual github user" is a creator of Baikal, so it's not some random guy and since his github site is available for everyone, it is public.


----------



## trh411 (Apr 7, 2014)

pkubaj said:
			
		

> trh411 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Having done a little research, I stand corrected. Per /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.sites.mk, the use of github is allowed for ports. However, having said that, per my quick check, there are no ports that actually USE_GITHUB as a source download site.

If you want to object to the removal, I suggest you state your case on freebsd-ports@freebsd.org. I would be curious what they tell you.


----------



## kpa (Apr 7, 2014)

Ports are checked with automated tools if the distfiles are available. If the check fails repeatedly the port is marked as broken. If no one steps up to fix the port so that the distfiles are again fetchable the port gets deprecated and eventually deleted if no one shows any interest in it.


----------



## trh411 (Apr 7, 2014)

kpa said:
			
		

> Ports are checked with automated tools if the distfiles are available. If the check fails repeatedly the port is marked as broken. If no one steps up to fix the port so that the distfiles are again fetchable the port gets deprecated and eventually deleted if no one shows any interest in it.


It's my understanding that no new port will get added unless it has a maintainer. Does the same apply to removed ports that are later added back or can they have a ports@ maintainer. Just curious.


----------



## kpa (Apr 7, 2014)

trh411 said:
			
		

> kpa said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Most certainly there has to be a real maintainer for the to be resurrected port. The ports@ maintainer is sort of a stopgap measure now to keep certain important ports from being deleted from the tree, in the long run it's a non-workable solution because any maintainance to those ports has to be done by already overworked port committers that could use their time in more productive ways than trying to fix old ports that nobody cares about.


----------



## Chris_H (Apr 8, 2014)

So the easy answer is: Everyone adopt a port that is currently maintained by ports@. Then everyone get's what they want, and the "overworked" developer, can concentrate on _real_ bugs. 

Sorry, couldn't resist.
Truth is; that's how I picked up my first port "maintainership", by adopting a port sentenced to death (marked for deletion). 

--Chris


----------



## xy16644 (Apr 8, 2014)

fonz said:
			
		

> xy16644 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This worked perfectly @fonz...thank you.


----------

