Okidoki :) ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Re: Listing the ports that will be upgraded in advance Date: Saturday February 21 2015, 13:33:40 From: Jeremy Lavergne <[email protected]> To: René JV Bertin <[email protected]> On February 21, 2015 6:21:49 AM EST, "René JV Bertin" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> one. Besides, what's wrong with "this port has a newer version but >it's >>> 'held' so we simply skip the upgrade and hope the user knows what he >is >>> doing"? I think we an rely on the version checking already >implemented >>> in the configure/cmake code, and possibly try a bit harder (where >>> necessary) to present the actual error message to the user rather >than >>> "go check the log file". >>> >> >> Does this address case where using prebuilt archives? > >For holding a port at its current version, I don't see why not? > >Correction: at some point one would get dyld-induced aborts that will >mention the expected and missing library. That ought to be a good >enough indicator what's going on (same thing can happen wit linux >packages that missed a versioned dependency). >Alternatively port could scan the declared dependencies and disable >binary package support when dependencies are held. And print a big fat >warning if the configure phase fails in that case. > >Any reason you didn't ask this on the list? > >R. On my mobile it does not default to reply all, sorry ----------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
