Listing the ports that will be upgraded in advance

[René J.V. Bertin]

On Thursday February 19 2015 15:52:36 Clemens Lang wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> ----- On 19 Feb, 2015, at 15:07, René JV Bertin rjvbertin at gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > Possible, but from what I could tell the only that was broken was the registry
> > entry. Doxygen contains only a binary, basically,  and any issues due to -n
> > should haven been caught by the rev-upgrade step before I started on the
> > dependent port.
> > Right?
> 
> No. I can easily come up with a case that's not covered:

I didn't have time to finish my previous message, and cannot recall what I wanted to add.
Whatever:

1) Does the procedure leading up to a port's configure step test all dependencies to see if they don't behave unexpectedly? Expected answer: no, because there's no universal definition of such behaviour.
2) What could reinstalling the binary package possibly have changed, except for some information in the registry or other metadata? (Reinstalling => same version as was installed already.)

Not saying you're wrong, just that I don't see what my use of -n could have borked that caused this glitch.
I think it's more likely that I hit ^C a bit too often at the wrong time.

> tl;dr: do NOT use -n. It is considered harmful, and it is considered harmful for
> a reason.

Fine. Than at least give us a "hold" feature to clamp a given port to its current version ... O:-)

R.