On May 23, 2015, at 9:57 AM, Rainer Müller wrote:
> The second approach with multiple versions per port would allow to add
> new versions without forcing everyone to upgrade immediately. This opens
> the possibility to test new versions with a few brave testers without
> the need to add and remove
On Saturday May 23 2015 15:57:22 Rainer Müller wrote:
> So you assume we provide multiple versions of the same port?
I know you don't, and that a port is always taken from the highest-priority
repo in sources.conf .
I also know I added the word wishful or wishfully before or after the word
thi
On 2015-05-22 15:17, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> On Friday May 22 2015 14:36:49 Rainer Müller wrote:
>
>> What if a port flagged "stable" depends on an "unstable" port?
>
> That'd be an anomaly and in order for anything like this to function
> with MacPorts, base would have to support the notion of
On 22/05/15 13:36, Rainer Müller wrote:
What if a port flagged "stable" depends on an "unstable" port?
Then that would be a port bug, provided it did so to the exclusion of
depending on a stable package. If a stable and an unstable port were
installed together, that would be a misconfigured or
On Friday May 22 2015 14:36:49 Rainer Müller wrote:
>What if a port flagged "stable" depends on an "unstable" port?
That'd be an anomaly and in order for anything like this to function with
MacPorts, base would have to support the notion of depending on specific
versions. Debian's systems allow
On 2015-05-22 14:03, Russell Jones wrote:
> MP does experimental with local port repos, I guess. Ports seem to vary
> between testing and no maintainer (not an unknown problem in Debian
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2005/07/msg00047.html ). Flagging the
> port status is a good idea, but I th
