On May 28, 2015, at 2:47 PM, René J.V. Bertin rjvber...@gmail.com wrote:
It should be safe to build ports that do not depend directly on a failed
port, but it seems not impossible that the ABI-changing effect of the update
of an indirect dependency permeates to a direct dependency.
I would
End users probably don't read the man pages to even know these flags exist.
We're left wondering how and why you're even using them.
-p Despite any errors encountered, proceed to process multiple ports
and com-
mands.
-f force mode (ignore state file)
Do
On Thursday May 28 2015 19:54:27 Kurt Pfeifle wrote:
I've seen the upgrade of 200+ packages stopping just because one of the
first five package upgrade fails.
So have I, but I rarely if ever use even -p when I do launch a bunch of
updates. I rather tend to isolate the ones I know will be
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Jeremy Lavergne jer...@lavergne.gotdns.org
wrote:
End users probably don't read the man pages to even know these flags
exist.
That's what I already hinted at in my last mail.
We're left wondering how and why you're even using them.
-p Despite
On May 28, 2015, at 1:09 PM, Kurt Pfeifle kurt.pfei...@googlemail.com wrote:
Ok then: which one of the two switches is the unsafe one? I guess the -f? Or
has the combination of the two even more damage potential?
They're both unsafe.
-f does different things depending on the build phase, but
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:54 PM, Lawrence Velázquez lar...@macports.org
wrote:
On May 27, 2015, at 4:37 PM, Kurt Pfeifle kurt.pfei...@googlemail.com
wrote:
[]
girara was updated an hour ago. Please run a selfupdate and try upgrading
again.
Thanks, it works now.
P.S. Unrelated: Stop
I'm confused about the purpose of the thread.
The documentation indicates why what you're doing is a bad thing. You should
just run random commands without knowing what they do.
To quote IRC:
things break so often that i decided that the best course of action was to
ignore the breakage
It
