[Sorry, I realise I send my replies off-list] On 28 Feb 2014, at 14:44, Jason Swails <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 14:33 +0100, Peter Danecek wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I observe a behaviour, which I believe is due to the fact that I >> uninstalled an selected port (see below). This seems to leave the >> selection mechanism in an undesired state and should be handled. Now I >> wonder which is the expected behaviour, so that I can eventually file >> a ticket against the right component. >> >> Thanks! >> >> --- snip --- >> >> petr% sudo port select --list postgresql >> Available versions for postgresql: >> none (active) >> postgresql93 >> >> petr% sudo port select --set postgresql postgresql93 >> Selecting 'postgresql93' for 'postgresql' failed: symlink: >> /opt/local/etc/select/postgresql/current-> postgresql93: file already exists > > Try forcing the issue. > > sudo port -f select --set postgresql postgresql93 > > In my opinion, such protection is a Good Thing (TM). There's a way to > work around it if you know the reason behind the file collision, but I > certainly wouldn't want a program (especially one I run as root) to go > around clobbering existing files without me knowing it. Well, I understand your point and it would be fine if it is decided to leave ALL untouched. But then in expect consistent information, i.e. all should be left pointing to `postgresql92` (even if it does not exist), so at least you know the status. If I am informed that it point to `none` this should be the case. And I am not sure if setting the current link to `none` would harm here. ~petr
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
