Homebrew

[Bradley Giesbrecht]

On May 18, 2010, at 11:01 AM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:

> On May 18, 2010, at 1:48 PM, Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
>> This comment almost makes me mad. The handful committers don't need  
>> local repos. Wonder why?
>
> I don't need/use a local repo because my macports/sources.conf  
> points to a svn checkout. If/when I see problems with ports I'm  
> using I can fix them there and generate diffs to attach to tickets.  
> A 'svn update' of that directory won't kill my local changes, either.

So if I have svn checkout in sources.conf and I do "port selfupdate"  
my changes to <prefix>/var/macports/sources/svn.macports.org/trunk/ 
dports won't be clobbered?
I didn't know that. How would I change back to the macports files later?

> A local repo is good for testing a whole bunch of new ports, or for  
> having something you want to be able to distribute within an  
> organization that you don't want to contribute back to Macports (say  
> a set of internal-use applications). It's still a pretty worthwhile  
> feature.
>
>> When openssl was upgraded to v1 beta or what ever and it broke  
>> everything I care about it made me wish for a way to stop port from  
>> upgrading things I didn't ask it to.
>
> port only upgrades what you ask it to.
>
> What you wanted was a way to say upgrade everything except for  
> openssl (or a more magic version, upgrade everything that won't  
> break the stuff I care about).

I believe I was following the suggestion at the end of "port  
selfupdate" to do "port upgrade outdated".

So are you saying if I do "port upgrade x" and port x depends on port  
"y" and port "y" is outdated then port will not upgrade port "y".

// Brad
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/attachments/20100518/b907a4f0/attachment.html>