Fwd: Re: Listing the ports that will be upgraded in advance

[René J.V. Bertin]

Okidoki :)

----------  Forwarded Message  ----------

Subject: Re: Listing the ports that will be upgraded in advance
Date: Saturday February 21 2015, 13:33:40
From: Jeremy Lavergne <jeremy at lavergne.gotdns.org>
To: René JV Bertin <rjvbertin at gmail.com>

On February 21, 2015 6:21:49 AM EST, "René JV Bertin" <rjvbertin at gmail.com> wrote:

>>> one. Besides, what's wrong with "this port has a newer version but
>it's
>>> 'held' so we simply skip the upgrade and hope the user knows what he
>is
>>> doing"? I think we an rely on the version checking already
>implemented
>>> in the configure/cmake code, and possibly try a bit harder (where
>>> necessary) to present the actual error message to the user rather
>than
>>> "go check the log file".
>>> 
>> 
>> Does this address case where using prebuilt archives?
>
>For holding a port at its current version, I don't see why not?
>
>Correction: at some point one would get dyld-induced aborts that will
>mention the expected and missing library. That ought to be a good
>enough indicator what's going on (same thing can happen wit linux
>packages that missed a versioned dependency).
>Alternatively port could scan the declared dependencies and disable
>binary package support when dependencies are held. And print a big fat
>warning if the configure phase fails in that case.
>
>Any reason you didn't ask this on the list?
>
>R.

On my mobile it does not default to reply all, sorry
-----------------------------------------