On Feb 10, 2012, at 15:15, Daniel J. Luke wrote: > On Feb 10, 2012, at 3:33 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> When "port load" and "port unload" were implemented, I figured we would >> probably want to integrate those into (i.e. call those from) "port activate" >> and "port deactivate" respectively. > > I don't think we ever want to automatically (on install) load up a daemon > (especially one that is listening on the network). It's good that we require > positive action from the person doing the install to do that.
Er, yes. What I meant is, if the user has already loaded a port's daemon, we might want to automatically unload it for them when they deactivate the port, and re-load the daemon for them when they re-activate the (possibly upgraded) port. This would require us to maintain (perhaps in our registry) our own list of which ports the user has requested to be loaded. Or another approach would be for MacPorts to decline to deactivate a port if its daemon is running, thus requiring the user to be aware of it and deactivate it themselves if that's what they really wanted. _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
