sudo port upgrade installed

[Frank J. R. Hanstick]

Hello,
	How does not starting anything until the upgrade is finished fail in  
any manner?  I do not call waiting for something to finish before  
starting something else a failure.  Personally, when I upgrade,  
especially when the upgrade is an all encompassing upgrade, I do not  
have anything running that could be effected by any module being  
upgraded.  The only time I run multiple processes is when I know the  
processes are not going to interact in some unpredictable way (unless  
I am debugging interconnecting processes in which case I am quite  
prepared for failures).  One process randomly linking and unlinking  
modules used by other processes does not make for good predictability.
	Which leads to a second point.  It does not even have to be a gcc or  
any other long period upgrade,  It could just as well be from a  
library reference or some other required linkage that could be lost  
at the wrong moment.  This is true even from very short time spans  
between deactivation and activation since everything is running  
asynchronously.  Trying to simultaneously run and upgrade modules  
that interlink with each other (either running or being upgraded) is  
just asking for trouble.
Frank

On Nov 29, 2008, at 6:53 PM, Neil wrote:

>
> On 29 Nov 2008, at 19:43, Frank J. R. Hanstick wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> On Nov 29, 2008, at 2:46 PM, Neil wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 29 Nov 2008, at 16:46, Frank J. R. Hanstick wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think preventing usage during an upgrade process would be far  
>>>> superior to using and having links severed during usage..
>>>>
>>>
>>> Okay, so I'm upgrading gcc43, going from 4.3.1 to 4.3.2  
>>> (current).  It's going to take 2 hours say.  You find it superior  
>>> that MacPorts should (somehow) stop me from using gcc 4.3.1 to  
>>> perhaps write a couple hello-world sized test cases while it's  
>>> compiling gcc 4.3.2 instead of just compiling 4.3.2 elsewhere,  
>>> and then swapping them out when it's done?
>>>
>>> Kindly permit me to draw you an analogy:  You want to buy a new  
>>> car.  The search for a new car will take 3 weeks.  You find it  
>>> superior that I take away your current car while you're shopping  
>>> for the new car, instead of letting you use your current car up  
>>> until you find a new car, and then swapping them?
>>>
>> 	And I will give you an even better example.  Your compilation is  
>> 30 seconds from finished and the links to gcc are lost, then  
>> what?  You prefer to have your compilation crash?  Your analogy is  
>> MBE.  The car you have is not linked to one being upgraded.  It  
>> would be like your current car suddenly quitting while your are  
>> driving it in the middle of the freeway because the new model is  
>> now ready.  Get a better analogy.
>
> If your compilation is going to take that long, then it wouldn't  
> finish under either scenario; so there is nothing to lose.  But if  
> your compilation is 30 seconds shorter, then under your scenario is  
> fails, and under the current scenario it doesn't.
>
> -N.
>