dealing with ports that can't upgrade

[Rainer Müller]

paul beard wrote:
>     Do we really want people ignoring available upgrades? I don't think
>     that's a good feature to add.
> 
> If the upgrade doesn't install, why waste the cycles on it? And if a 
> port's current version is the only one that works for a given use case, 
> do we want to force an unwanted upgrade or force a user to downgrade it 
> themselves? Assume that someone who is using MacPorts knows what they're 
> doing: setting the ignore flag is not something that can be done by 
> accident and it would be trivial to display a message listing the 
> ignored ports, so the user could be reminded that they had thrown that 
> switch.

If the upgrade does not install it needs to be fixed. I don't think a 
ignore list would be really useful.

I think you could just create a local repository with the old version of 
the port, overriding the version from the official tree.

 >[...]
> I leave this decision to the port's maintainers: ideally it would no 
> longer show up in the list of outdated ports, because it really isn't 
> outdated for that release of the OS.

Ideally you are requesting multiple versions of the same port here, so 
we could specify if they are working on a platform or not. That would 
mean the latest version for Tiger would be a different version than for 
Leopard. But currently there is only one version of a port for all 
platforms and we have to deal with it somehow.

Splitting the port up in two separate ports would be a solution. A 
message to the users on Tiger would tell them about the new port they 
should use instead.

Rainer