Hi Brad

A quick update.

Points -

   1. Is it okay to fetch dependents using mportlookup while installing?
   2. For migrate action, we agreed upon installing all and only the
   (active requested + inactive requested) ports, in short, all the requested
   in the sorted order, right? Dependencies can figure out themselves, they
   might be different for different platforms.
   3. Are the ports which are part of the snapshot related to the actual
   ports at implementation level? If no, then snapshot needs to move to a
   different data structure, and in that case:

   - move all to C file snapshot.c from entry.c in cregistry. Till now, I
      was just using a way around to it with "registry::entry create_snapshot"
      which doesn't comply with the design at all. A snapshot shouldn't use the
      data structure 'reg_entry', so I'm moving all to a separate module where
      the C registry functions dealing with snapshot could be kept.
      - OR if 'reg_entry' is possible, then why do we have a
      reg_portgroup struct and others.

Todo -

   1. Later: fetching dependencies only once while migrating. Right now,
   doing it twice for installation and while uninstalling.
   2. know the internals of `port selfupdate` and check if a part of it can
   be used for the only step left in migrate, having a fresh installation of
   macports for the updated platform.

Please find the work log here

Umesh Singla

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Bradley Giesbrecht <pixi...@macports.org>

> > On Jul 27, 2017, at 2:10 PM, db <iams...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 27 Jul 2017, at 21:21, Bradley Giesbrecht <pixi...@macports.org>
> wrote:
> >> Migration will uninstall all installed ports and then install all the
> ports from the snapshot
> >
> > Yes, but I'm talking about using snapshot and restore at different times
> with ports being updated between them, likely resulting in different
> outcomes.
> We are not keeping track of port versions so restore would deactivate all
> ports and then install the snap shot ports with variants. At least that is
> what I imagine.
> —
> Brad

Reply via email to