On Apr 27, 2007, at 7:42 AM, Salvatore Domenick Desiano wrote:
o - yes, epoch is always considered first in outdated version
comparisons. It is
o undefined what would happen if an epoch was removed. Never do
that. (I believe
o that a port without an epoch is considered to have an epoch of
zero). If
o you've added epoch once to a port you should never remove it,
only increase
o it. That should not really be a problem.
It seems interesting to me that adding an epoch, even once,
condemns the
Portfile to have epochs for eternity. Maybe this doesn't matter, but I
thought it worth mentioning. It also may be worth including the
epoch in
the "outdated" display.
Well, by the very definition of what epoch is, if you go back in time
to a previous epoch, then your numbering system gets messed up.
I'd be happy to include epoch in the outdated display. Perhaps only
in -v mode, and only if there is an epoch for a port?
o Now, can anybody give me any valid data on a case where there's a
failure to
o detect an outdated version? If so, what does port info show for
version and
o epoch, and what's the installed version? In other words, what is
the data that
o the outdated routines are comparing?
I don't know if my version of port is too outdated to be useful, but I
end up seeing:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:sal>port info tor
tor 0.1.1.26, security/tor (Variants: universal)
http://tor.eff.org/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:sal>port installed tor
The following ports are currently installed:
tor @0.1.1.26_0 (active)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:sal>port -d outdated tor
DEBUG: Found port in
file:///Users/sal/Projects/MacPorts/macports-trunk/dports/security/tor
No installed ports are outdated.
-- Sal
smile.
So that looks perfectly normal. Installed is the same version that
the port index has listed, so it doesn't show up as outdated.
James
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
