On Dec 11, 2014, at 1:46 PM, Clemens Lang <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > ----- On 11 Dec, 2014, at 22:31, Bradley Giesbrecht [email protected] > wrote: > >> If installation/activation of ports via dependency ignores installed inactive >> versions I think this a bug in base. >> >> Shouldn't dependency installation take into consideration multiple inactive >> versions as "port activate" does? > > No. There is a reason why we always upgrade dependencies first. Installing a > port always requires all dependencies to be at the latest state. If we didn't > do that we'd either need versioned dependencies, or rev-bumps would be > pointless. All ports were already at the current version, there was no upgrade. > Without checking active versions before and after activation this user > workflow >> could be dangerous: >> $ sudo port -q deactivate sqlgrey postfix >> $ sudo port -q activate sqlgrey > > Dangerous in that you might end up with a more recent version of postfix than > you > had before, yes. I don't think this is a very dangerous situation – in fact I > think the exact opposite situation might actually be more dangerous. There were two current versions of the same port with differing variants: ---> postfix @2.11.3_0 ---> postfix @2.11.3_0+dovecot_sasl+mariadb I was surprised that "port activate postfix" asked for a specific version+variant while "port activate sqlgrey" was happy to suck in the default postfix. This is an edge case, I accept the status quo. Regards, Bradley Giesbrecht (pixilla)
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
