users confusing selfupdate and sync

[Olivier Le Floch]

>> The best might be to remind users that call "port sync" that "port  
>> selfupdate" is the "usual" next step in updating ports. i.e. "port  
>> sync" would end by displaying something like
>>
>>> "Portfiles successfully updated. To upgrade installed ports to  
>>> their latest versions, please run port selfupdate."
>
> selfupdate doesn't update anything but update MacPorts itself and  
> the ports tree.  If I understood you correctly, they'd then be  
> running `port upgrade outdated` which still leaves MacPorts itself  
> not updated.

Oh -_- Right, having higher level scripts that call these commands  
automatically made me forget how things worked... People are calling  
sync ? I agree then that this isn't ideal, and your solution (sync  
works just as selfupdate, with a --portfiles_only option) seems  
adequate to me.

If there isn't a consensus on this "merging", however, reminding users  
that the "port" command hasn't been upgraded would be a minimum (fix  
my end-of-sync sentence above to read "To upgrade the 'port' command,  
please run 'port selfupdate'." :) ).

> However, you do bring up an interesting idea I hadn't considered:  
> why don't we have a command to do a all-things upgrade?  That is  
> `selfupdate` + `upgrade outdated`?

This has been discussed before (Ryan probably was the clearest on why  
we do things this way, iirc). One reason I think was that "port  
upgrade" warranted some caution, in particular as to which ports would  
be in fact, upgraded, so that many users do

> port selfupdate
> port outdated
> port upgrade outdated (if "port outdated"'s output isn't scary, else  
> they upgrade only some ports)

this would be the equivalent of other packaging system's "confirmation  
before upgrading" dialogs (apt-get, aptitude ask before upgrading  
installed software and list the changes that will be made). This would  
be a bit more development, and I guess discussion came to an end there.