On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 04:27:07PM -0800, Toby Peterson wrote:
> On Jan 21, 2011, at 4:21 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 04:07:43PM -0800, Toby Peterson wrote:
> >> On Jan 21, 2011, at 3:14 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> >>
> >>> Does port leave an audit trail ala yum.log? I double checked and my local
> >>> port directory for pymol had revision 1
> >>> so any previous builds of pymol would not have superceded the new
> >>> revision 2. I also see that pymol revision bumped
> >>> at r75159 on 1/16/01.
> >>
> >> Since you had revision 1 locally, it sounds like you got the libpng update
> >> but missed out on the corresponding revbump in pymol. If that's the case,
> >> simply rebuilding pymol (after another selfupdate/sync) would've obviated
> >> this entire thread.
> >>
> >
> > Your argument doesn't make sense. According to...
> >
> > http://trac.macports.org/changeset/74954
> >
> > the revision 1 change was committed on Jan 9th, whereas according to...
> >
> > http://trac.macports.org/changeset/75159
> >
> > The bump to revision 2 was done automatically on Jan 16th. So my local
> > revision 1 portfile should have no impact on this issue.
> > Jack
> > ps This problem was observed with a 'port selfupdate' and 'port update
> > outdated'
> > yesterday.
>
> The fact that you had revision 1 locally is 100% relevant, because it
> indicates that your copy of the pymol Portfile was not updated as it should
> have been.
Why would revision 1 in /Users/howarth/ports override revision 2 in the
rsync of portfiles in /opt/local? I can't imagine port was designed to behave
in that fashion.
Jack
>
> - Toby
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
