`port archive` ?

[Eric Gallager]

On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 7:29 AM René J.V. Bertin <rjvbertin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Monday October 23 2023 01:34:03 Eric Gallager wrote:
>
> >I sometimes try using the `port archive` command, and one thing I'm
> >wondering about it is, why does it bother calculating conflicts if it
> >doesn't actually install the port?
>
> That's strange, in my experience conflicts are detected when moving files into place during the activation stage. So I presume you are talking about conflicts registered in the PortFile?

Yes, conflicts registered in the Portfile. For example:

```
$ sudo port archive arm-elf-gcc3
Warning: All compilers are either blacklisted or unavailable;
defaulting to first fallback option
--->  Computing dependencies for arm-elf-gcc3
Error: Can't install arm-elf-gcc3 because conflicting ports are
active: arm-elf-gcc
Error: Follow https://guide.macports.org/#project.tickets if you
believe there is a bug.
Error: Processing of port arm-elf-gcc3 failed
```

>
> It's true that for those you could argue that `port install` could fall back to `port archive` and post a note for the user. Might be too subtle for the Joe & Jane users though, and it might not be worth the effort to implement a switch in macports.conf for this?
>
> In fact, isn't there already logic in place that prevents you from activating a port that conflicts with another? If so, implementing that switch should be trivial...
>
> R.