Daniel J. Luke dluke at
Wed Jul 23 07:03:33 PDT 2014

On Jul 22, 2014, at 11:43 PM, Ryan Schmidt <ryandesign at> wrote:
> On Jul 22, 2014, at 12:37 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
>> (and/or won't rev-upgrade just fix these when upgrading perl? if it doesn't, can we just make it fix them?)
> rev-upgrade is a way for people to discover ports that are linked improperly that need to be fixed. rev-upgrade itself is not the fix. The fix is at minimum to increase the revision of the affected port.

sure, but it does mean that perl upgrades (where libperl.dylib moves) don't cause end-users to have broken installs (since it will rebuild the ports that link against the now-moved libperl.dylib).

> If we relied on rev-upgrade to itself be the fix, we'd end up with users who run "sudo port install", which downloads and installs a binary from our server, which rev-upgrade then promptly realizes is broken, causing the source to be downloaded and built, which is a waste of time and bandwidth.

I agree that the individual ports should be fixed.
Daniel J. Luke                                                                   
| *---------------- dluke at ----------------* |                          
| *-------------- -------------* |                          
|   Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily   |                          
|          reflect the opinions of my employer.          |                          

More information about the macports-dev mailing list