brad at pixilla.com
Fri Jan 21 17:25:46 PST 2011
On Jan 21, 2011, at 5:09 PM, Jeremy Lavergne wrote:
>> 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!
Putting your local repository ahead of rsync in sources.conf provides
a valuable method of preventing software from being upgraded.
To me, this is a well document "in sources.conf" feature.
More information about the macports-dev