On Feb 23, 2008, at 07:21, Rainer Müller wrote:
> Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> Not wasted. Just deactivate the one you got and then activate the
>> new one.
>
> Not possible. Install *failed*. You can't install the exact same
> version/revision/variants twice.
Oh. Um, yes. I see that now. Just
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> Not wasted. Just deactivate the one you got and then activate the new
> one.
Not possible. Install *failed*. You can't install the exact same
version/revision/variants twice.
Rainer
___
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lis
On Feb 23, 2008, at 06:35, Rainer Müller wrote:
> Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> Isn't it fine the way it works now? It's that way, I think, so
>> that, if you already have foo installed, but now you want foo
>> +bar, you can "sudo port install foo +bar", and it'll fetch and
>> configure and bu
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> Isn't it fine the way it works now? It's that way, I think, so that,
> if you already have foo installed, but now you want foo +bar, you can
> "sudo port install foo +bar", and it'll fetch and configure and build
> and destroot and install, however long that takes, and t
On Feb 22, 2008, at 23:31, Rainer Müller wrote:
> currently, we enforce that every change has to increment the revision,
> in order to force a rebuild by the user. But in fact, the current base
> code also checks the last modified date of the Portfile to see if
> it was
> changed since installat
Hi,
currently, we enforce that every change has to increment the revision,
in order to force a rebuild by the user. But in fact, the current base
code also checks the last modified date of the Portfile to see if it was
changed since installation.
See sample with a non-existing port `empty':
---8<
