On Jan 4, 2016, at 5:13 PM, René J.V. Bertin <rjvber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You're aware that the full path to the lockfile is already printed, almost as
> if to allow people who know what they're doing to copy/paste it into a
> different terminal window and remove it.
you're assuming a lot there.
> An option to ignore the lock has the benefit of documentation, and can be
> coupled to a confirmation request.
we don't do interactive interrogation generally for port actions (I don't think
the GSOC that added it for interactive sessions landed in a release, but I
could be wrong).
Usability research says that that sort of thing ("You're about to shoot
yourself in the foot, do you wish to continue? Yes/No") doesn't actually work
to protect users.
> I suppose it would also be possible to add additional locking code to protect
> certain operation that should always be exclusive (like install, de/activate).
please do.
--
Daniel J. Luke
+========================================================+
| *---------------- dl...@geeklair.net ----------------* |
| *-------------- http://www.geeklair.net -------------* |
+========================================================+
| Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily |
| reflect the opinions of my employer. |
+========================================================+
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
