On Oct 25, 2013, at 6:23 PM, Joshua Root <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2013-10-26 09:16 , Daniel J. Luke wrote: >> On Oct 25, 2013, at 5:52 PM, Rainer Müller <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 2013-10-25 23:33, Daniel J. Luke wrote: >>>> If not, maybe we should (so we can print out something like "bad user, no >>>> cookie: https://trac.macports.org/wiki/Migration";, or so we can force a >>>> selfupdate rebuild? :) ) >>> >>> We already have that in the registry. You can see the platform and arch >>> with the command 'port -v installed' for each port. >> >> yeah, but for this, I care about the OS that base was built/installed on. >> >> Right now, doing upgrade OS + port -f selfupdate + port upgrade outdated >> mostly works. >> >> It would be nice for end users if upgrade OS + run port = port saying 'you >> need to selfupdate' and have users selfupdate (ideally without -f). I might >> try to make some time to work up a patch, but was just curious if we keep >> the build/install OS version for base somewhere. > > Yes, it would be a nice enhancement to record the platform base was > configured on and at least print a warning if it doesn't match.
a warning with a link to the migration instructions, probably. > Unfortunately the Migration instructions have good reasons for being > written the way they are, as -f selfupdate + upgrade outdated doesn't > always succeed. True, but having a hook where we could do something better than what we're doing now would be good. -- Daniel J. Luke +========================================================+ | *---------------- [email protected] ----------------* | | *-------------- http://www.geeklair.net -------------* | +========================================================+ | Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily | | reflect the opinions of my employer. | +========================================================+ _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
