first experiences with rev-upgrade

[Landon Fuller]

On Apr 8, 2012, at 8:42 AM, Rainer Müller wrote:

> On 2012-04-08 13:57 , Clemens Lang wrote:
>> Not running rev-upgrade automatically will probably cause it never to be
>> run at all by the average user. We could run the analysis phase
>> automatically and instruct the user to issue port rev-upgrade to trigger
>> the rebuild manually when problems occur. However, as said before,
>> there's no point in keeping broken binaries and users might just as well
>> be annoyed by updates breaking their other ports as much as they are
>> annoyed by some phase trying to fix it automatically for them.
> 
> Instead of running rev-upgrade automatically we could follow the
> approach in selfupdate/upgrade outdated. 'port selfupdate' prints a
> message that users should run 'port upgrade outdated' to upgrade their
> ports.
> 
> For rev-upgrade, that could be implemented as a message in the form of
> "X broken ports found, run 'port rev-upgrade' to rebuild these ports."
> and do not automatically pursue the upgrade.
> 
> Personally I switched to the 'report' action for rev-upgrade in
> macports.conf, which is suitable for developers. However such an option
> is not a replacement for a sane default behavior for end users.

I think it should be noted that rev-upgrade isn't really optional in the same way that 'upgrade outdated' is -- rev-upgrade is detecting genuinely broken binaries and fixing them, automatically.

As an end user, I just want things to work. If port(1) automatically fixes broken ports on my system, all the better. I don't personally think adding additional steps to fixing otherwise broken binaries is a better experience for users.

-landonf
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/attachments/20120408/d56fccb9/attachment-0001.bin>