When using trace mode and armed with the dependency tree, I know that my concurrent installs will not be impacting each other. The lock should be intelligent enough to use the dependency tree�after all, MacPorts is the one computing it.
I agree with Rene here: the lock should be smart enough to use the dependency tree. On 01/04/2016 04:18 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: > On Jan 4, 2016, at 4:13 PM, Ren� J.V. Bertin <rjvber...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Maybe the "simplest" solution would be to provide an option to ignore the >> lock if it's present, and leave it to the user to know what s/he is doing >> (and assume the consequences, like with -n, -p or -o)? > > that's a pretty horrible idea. > > The consequences of ignoring the lock (in the worst case) are worse than -n > -p or -o > > if you want to improve the locking, I'm sure everyone will be happy about > that. If you want to hack your system to not use the lock, you can live with > the consequences - but it's not something we should ship. > _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
