Portfile modification date checks vs. Portfile revisions

[Ryan Schmidt]

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 installation.
>
> See sample with a non-existing port `empty':
> ---8<---snip---8<---
> $ touch Portfile
> $ port install
> [...]
> --->  Installing empty 1_0
> --->  Activating empty 1_0
> --->  Cleaning empty
> $ port install
> Skipping org.macports.activate (empty ) since this port is already  
> active
> --->  Cleaning empty
> $ touch Portfile
> $ port install
> [...]
> --->  Installing empty 1_0
> Error: Target org.macports.install returned: Registry error: empty  
> @1_0
> already registered as installed.  Please uninstall it first.
> Error: Status 1 encountered during processing.
> --->8---snap--->8---
>
> So it clearly rebuilds just because the modification date of the
> Portfile itself changed (it also issues a message in debug mode, but I
> did not want to post a whole debug log). And you will notice this  
> first
> *after* compiling, which could be a long time for some ports.
>
> It already happened to me: I typed `port install' just to see a
> message after fetching and compiling that actually I already had that
> exact same port/version/revision/variant installed.
> So I am asking if this is still needed at all. I would rather see  
> `port
> install' telling me that this port is already installed and I would  
> have
> to use `port upgrade` to get a newer version.
> Also, currently it only works for the exact combination of
> port/version/revision/variants, if it differs it will install anyway.
> This could be extended to check if it is installed at all no matter
> which version or which variants are selected. And install can of  
> course
> be forced with -f.
>
> I suppose this was introduced for Portfile developers, so that it  
> always
> runs the target if the Portfile is newer, but that is not  
> comfortable or
> users in my opinion.
>
> What do you think? How should this work?

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 then it'll  
print the message that foo is already installed. Then you can "sudo  
port deactivate foo" and "sudo port activate foo +bar" and within a  
few seconds have the port swapped out.