PortGroup versions

[Joshua Root]

On 2011-8-25 07:18 , Rainer Müller wrote:
> On 2011-08-24 21:22 , Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> On Aug 21, 2011, at 21:16, Arno Hautala wrote:
>>> It's a bug in the Perl 5 PortGroup.
>>
>> At this time, it is being considered a *behavior* of the perl5 portgroup, which users should ignore; it is harmless, if annoying.
> 
> At least we have now learned that introducing major changes to a port
> group should result in an increment of the version number.
> 
> Another solution would be to expand PortGroup statements at the time of
> installation of a Portfile while saving it to the registry. But it would
> prevent us from fixing bugs or changing behavior of the port group after
> a port is installed.
> 
> Also I noticed now that this handling of port groups is most probably
> broken when using multiple sources. When executing the activate/deactive
> phase from the registry it would always load the port group from the
> default source and not from the source the Portfile actually came from.

We discussed the fact that portgroup changes could break portfiles
stored in the registry at the time that registry2.0 was integrated, and
decided that having pre/post deactivate/uninstall working most of the
time was valuable even if all the possible pitfalls weren't covered.
Uninstall and deactivate are specifically written to still work even if
executing the portfile fails.

Patches to improve the situation are of course welcome.

- Josh