port upgrade outdated order

[Chris Jones]

On 04/03/15 10:37, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> On Wednesday March 04 2015 08:58:17 Chris Jones wrote:
>
>>> I think I understood that ports can opt out from this mode, no? Can they also activate it?
>>
>> ports themselves cannot opt in or out, and nor should they be able to.
>> Its up to the user running the port command to decide.
>
> You have a lot of faith in this mode, and the extent to which it is possible to let it handle each and every case appropriately for each and every (potential) port out there. Maybe it is possible so there's indeed no need for allowing opt-out, but as Mihai also said, there are enough examples of cases where we'd want opt-in (if the user didn't specify a setting) or at least a warning if the user opted out but the port requires it.

Personally, I think what it does is *always* correct. If a port A does 
not declare a dependency on another port B then it should not be using 
any files from that port B. period. If it does, then I consider that a 
bug in port A. tracemode simply enforces this by blocking access to 
files a port should not be using, which results in more predictable 
behavior, and makes it easier to find mis-behaving ports.

So no, I don't personally think there should be a way for ports to opt 
in or out.

Chris