On Wednesday March 17 2021 06:53:53 Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>I think your proposal would result in a lot of unnecessary activations of
>older dependencies which could have consequences for other ports.
Without versioned dependencies would be helpful t avoid that (e.g. in Debian
you can indicate a
> Imagine that you're reactivating the last (older) version of a port to
> support 32bit, or more fashionable, the last to support Intel architecture.
> You wouldn't want that to cause its dependencies to be upgraded/activated to
> a version that dropped support for that particular
On Mar 17, 2021, at 06:38, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> On Wednesday March 17 2021 05:28:29 Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> I don't believe we can do that because I don't believe that information is
>> stored in the registry.
>
> Probably not, given that MacPort doesn't do versioned dependencies. In
On Wednesday March 17 2021 05:28:29 Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>I don't believe we can do that because I don't believe that information is
>stored in the registry.
Probably not, given that MacPort doesn't do versioned dependencies. In itself
that doesn't mean that it couldn't store the versions of
On Mar 17, 2021, at 05:19, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> On Tuesday March 16 2021 23:12:12 Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> There is no such thing as a "too-new version". There is only one version of
>> a port available in the ports tree -- the current version.
>
> Sure, but anything that's in the current
On Tuesday March 16 2021 23:12:12 Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>There is no such thing as a "too-new version". There is only one version of a
>port available in the ports tree -- the current version.
Sure, but anything that's in the current port tree should not be authoritative
over what is currently
On Mar 15, 2021, at 08:45, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>
> Hmmm, then I don't understand why yesterday this didn't work for me. Trying
> now with (an older version of) paracode as in your example gives a similar
> result. In my case however:
>
> {{{
>> sudo port activate paracode
> ---> Computing
On Monday March 15 2021 08:00:10 Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>On Mar 14, 2021, at 07:51, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>
>> Supposing runtime dependencies are stored in the registry,
>
>Yes of course.
>
>> wouldn't it be possible and a good idea to give at least a warning if any
>> are missing when you
On Mar 14, 2021, at 07:51, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> Supposing runtime dependencies are stored in the registry,
Yes of course.
> wouldn't it be possible and a good idea to give at least a warning if any are
> missing when you (re)activate a port?
It shouldn't warn; it should install or
