ghostscript update not automatically activated

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Nov 28, 2019, at 06:23, joerg van den hoff wrote:

> On 28.11.19 12:44 , Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 2019, at 04:48, joerg van den hoff wrote:
>>> I ran `port upgrade outdated' today. after end of sucessfull completion
>>> 
>>> `port outdated' still reported
>>> 
>>>    ghostscript                    9.27_1 < 9.50_0
>>> 
>>> 
>>> rerunning the `upgrade' did not change anything. on further inspection I see that I now have
>>> 
>>> 1) ghostscript @9.25_1+x11
>>> 2) ghostscript @9.26_0+x11
>>> 3) ghostscript @9.27_1+x11 (active)
>>> 4) ghostscript @9.50_0+x11
>>> 
>>> 
>>> question1: why does this happen? should not the `upgrade' take care of deactivating/activating automaticall? it usually does...
>> Yes of course. But it is possible for the activate phase of a port to fail. I think that should leave you with *no* version active, rather than the old version active. It is also possible for the user to reactivate old versions, though I suppose you would know if you had done this.
> 
> I don't think that has happened. if so, it would have to be too long ago to remember. so is that a potential bug in `ports' logic?

I really can't answer that at this point. If you have a reproduction recipe that always leads to this problem happening, then we could investigate it.