On Thursday February 19 2015 15:52:36 Clemens Lang wrote: > Hi, > > ----- On 19 Feb, 2015, at 15:07, René JV Bertin [email protected] wrote: > > > Possible, but from what I could tell the only that was broken was the > > registry > > entry. Doxygen contains only a binary, basically, and any issues due to -n > > should haven been caught by the rev-upgrade step before I started on the > > dependent port. > > Right? > > No. I can easily come up with a case that's not covered:
I didn't have time to finish my previous message, and cannot recall what I wanted to add. Whatever: 1) Does the procedure leading up to a port's configure step test all dependencies to see if they don't behave unexpectedly? Expected answer: no, because there's no universal definition of such behaviour. 2) What could reinstalling the binary package possibly have changed, except for some information in the registry or other metadata? (Reinstalling => same version as was installed already.) Not saying you're wrong, just that I don't see what my use of -n could have borked that caused this glitch. I think it's more likely that I hit ^C a bit too often at the wrong time. > tl;dr: do NOT use -n. It is considered harmful, and it is considered harmful > for > a reason. Fine. Than at least give us a "hold" feature to clamp a given port to its current version ... O:-) R. _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
