On 2012-04-02 , at 10:45 , Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > Good question. I don't know if we've ever thought about whether launchd > plists should be managed by port select. I don't have a particular opinion > about whether it would be useful or not, but if you think it is, maybe others > do too. > > One potentially problematic scenario to consider, if we were to do that, is > this: user selects mysql51, user uses your hypothetical "port load > mysql-server" to start mysql51, user selects mysql55. Now mysql51 is still > running, and the launchd id corresponding to it is mysql-server, but the > launchd plist that's in place at the id mysql-server no longer refers to > mysql51; it now refers to mysql55. So how do you stop the mysql51 server? You > can't. You wouldn't have this problem if you had used "port load > mysql51-server" in the first place, because you could then just "port unload > mysql51-server" later to unload it. > > Admittedly it's pretty similar to another problem we already have: user > installs port, user loads port, user uninstalls port; now the server is > running but the plist that would let you stop it has been deleted.
I simply wasn't sure if the 'port select' mechanism was intended to be quite so far reaching. As an 'administrator' I should know which applications I have running as daemons, so making me keep track of them is what I would expect. I think that it is perfectly acceptable that I should be able to do sudo port unload mysql5-server sudo port load mysql55-server as part of what I need to do to change versions. 8) ---------------------------------- Chris Janton - face at CentosPrime dot COM Netminder for Opus1.COM _______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
