The best might be to remind users that call "port sync" that "port
selfupdate" is the "usual" next step in updating ports. i.e. "port
sync" would end by displaying something like
"Portfiles successfully updated. To upgrade installed ports to
their latest versions, please run port selfupdate."
selfupdate doesn't update anything but update MacPorts itself and
the ports tree. If I understood you correctly, they'd then be
running `port upgrade outdated` which still leaves MacPorts itself
not updated.
Oh -_- Right, having higher level scripts that call these commands
automatically made me forget how things worked... People are calling
sync ? I agree then that this isn't ideal, and your solution (sync
works just as selfupdate, with a --portfiles_only option) seems
adequate to me.
If there isn't a consensus on this "merging", however, reminding users
that the "port" command hasn't been upgraded would be a minimum (fix
my end-of-sync sentence above to read "To upgrade the 'port' command,
please run 'port selfupdate'." :) ).
However, you do bring up an interesting idea I hadn't considered:
why don't we have a command to do a all-things upgrade? That is
`selfupdate` + `upgrade outdated`?
This has been discussed before (Ryan probably was the clearest on why
we do things this way, iirc). One reason I think was that "port
upgrade" warranted some caution, in particular as to which ports would
be in fact, upgraded, so that many users do
port selfupdate
port outdated
port upgrade outdated (if "port outdated"'s output isn't scary, else
they upgrade only some ports)
this would be the equivalent of other packaging system's "confirmation
before upgrading" dialogs (apt-get, aptitude ask before upgrading
installed software and list the changes that will be made). This would
be a bit more development, and I guess discussion came to an end there.
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
