Portfile modification date checks vs. Portfile revisions

[Ryan Schmidt]

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 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.
>
> But if I already got foo, I don't want to wait for `port install foo'
> take a long time just to tell me that I already got it.
>
> Maybe my request was not clearly phrased. If the Portfile  
> modification date is newer than the installation date, "port  
> install foo" will always begin to fetch and build, although you  
> can't install the exact same port/version/revision/variant twice.  
> Installing will just not succeed. And the time spent on building  
> this was most probably wasted.

Not wasted. Just deactivate the one you got and then activate the new  
one.

> By the way, if I want a port with additional variants, I use `port - 
> unf upgrade foo +bar'.

I didn't know that worked.