jeremy at lavergne.gotdns.org
Fri Jan 21 17:09:44 PST 2011
> Well it is there at...
> however that note should be enhanced to make the second point that retention of local portfiles will
> block the proper updating from the rsync.
What is the intended behavior? Some may want their local ports of identical version/revision to be the ones used--replacing available ports, whereas others just expect their local ports to be included along with the rsync ones--expanding the available list of ports.
Since it's usually just devs working at that level, it was assumed (I assume) that the local files being worked on should be used. This means, rather than assuming that local revision X is newer than the ever-changing rsync version, it will always be used regardless of versioning. This is because it would otherwise be possible while in the middle of working on their portfile, the revisions may have changed in rsync. The rsync files would then take precedence and stop showing the local changes--without warning!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 3749 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the macports-dev