sanity checks?

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Dec 7, 2007, at 11:27, Joe Davison wrote:

> Yesterday, on my other machine, I  did  "port upgrade all" when I  
> should have done "port upgrade installed".

Hmm.

> Today I stopped by the machine (867 MHz G4, OS 10.4.11)  and it was  
> still chugging along...
> Luckily I'd added "-v" and " | tee logfile" so a "grep -i fetching   
> logifile" showed it was busily upgrading packages I'd never  
> installed (or don't remember installing).  I killed it because I do  
> want to  be able to use the machine occasionally...
>
>
> Is the behavior of "upgrade all" reasonable?  I do recognize that  
> one can claim that an uninstalled package is upgraded by installing  
> it, but that seems a stretch.   Offhand, I'd think "upgrade" would  
> skip packages that weren't installed.

I would also think that "upgrade" should skip ports that are not  
installed. But that doesn't really appear to be the case. I hadn't  
noticed before, but:

$ port installed apache
None of the specified ports are installed.
$ sudo port upgrade apache
Password:
--->  Fetching apache
--->  Attempting to fetch apache_1.3.37.tar.gz from http:// 
archive.apache.org/dist/httpd/
^C
$

I think "upgrade" should issue an error that the port is not  
installed, recommending the user "install" it instead.

> That might better be done by a simple sanity check on the command  
> line args -- are there really people who could reasonably mean to  
> install every package in every tree?

No, it's never reasonable to install all ports. It would take  
forever, and besides, you can't install all ports, since some are  
incompatible with one another.