On Wednesday December 24 2014 15:07:40 Ryan Schmidt wrote: Hi,
> Any port install will first try to upgrade dependencies. Yeah, that's what I also realised thinking about it some more (and then saw it confirmed when `-n` had the intended effect). > > Off the top of my head I don't see a problem with the way the version is > declared in your preliminary libpgf Portfile, but perhaps there was the last > time you ran portindex on it? Perhaps rerunning portindex would get the > correct information into your index? Yess, that was it. It's possible that I hadn't yet added a version number when I portindexed it, and never repeated the operation because that doesn't appear to be necessary for version bumps. I'm wondering about the port, though. I saw that libpgf appears to be part of something called pgf which isn't the same thing already present as port:pgf . I hope there's no unwritten rule that states I should propose a port for the full monty, with libpgf a subport? R. _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
