On Aug 20, 2014, at 12:33 AM, Anders F Björklund wrote: > Ryan Schmidt wrote: > >>> Revision >>> 124087 > >>> rpm5x: replace with 5.4.x >> >> This is not sufficient to replace a port. For the proper procedure, see >> https://trac.macports.org/wiki/PortfileRecipes#replaced-by > > Well, it would be OK for any users of the old ports to keep using them. > Instead of adding these empty pseudoports with a fake pre-configure ? > > Just wanted to avoid new installations of the legacy versions, but OK.
That would accomplish that, yes, but I don't understand why that's the user experience you wanted to provide. Either there is value for some users in having these old ports installed, in which case the ports should remain intact and installable, or there is no value in having these old ports installed and users should be guided toward upgrading to newer versions, which is what the replaced_by recipe does. > I'll revert the commit, so you can make a real decision about RPM... > > --anders > > > PS. The example is wrong. xz-devel (4.999) was "upgraded" to xz (5.0) > and then xz-devel went onwards to 5.1alpha versions instead... The example was accurate when written. :) xz-devel was replaced by xz in December 2010. I added the replaced_by recipe including the xz-devel/xz example in April 2011. xz-devel was revived in August 2011. It is in the nature of documentation to become outdated, but it can certainly be updated or changed to a different example. > That is the very nature of the -devel ports, since you don't have > any "testing" area. Right. > But I've removed most of the -devel ports now. ...which is precisely the circumstance in which you would follow the -devel-to-non-devel replacement recipe. _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
