sudo port upgrade all

Ryan Schmidt ryandesign at macports.org
Sun Nov 30 11:40:51 PST 2008


On Nov 30, 2008, at 07:41, Joshua Root wrote:

> Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> Well, MacPorts is not FreeBSD. :) Certainly we should make it harder
>> for people to run commands they don't mean to run in the first place.
>> So instead of changing the meaning of "all", which most MacPorts
>> users should already be familiar with, I would rather make it so that
>> "port upgrade" exits with an error message if a port is not
>> installed, rather than installing the port as it currently does.
>> However I would still welcome feedback from anyone who knows why
>> MacPorts currently does it the way it does it.
>
> Has anyone opened a ticket for this?
>
> Upgrade is a recursive procedure, and it needs to be able to  
> install new
> ports when new dependencies are added to installed ports. So that's  
> why
> it happily installs a port that isn't already installed when you  
> tell it
> to upgrade it.

Hmm. I guess I don't know how it works internally. But it seems like  
there should have been a distinction between installing and upgrading.

> I assume it's just that nobody ever got around to adding a check at  
> the
> top level to make sure that the initially requested ports are already
> installed.

Ok. Then we should file a ticket to get that check added.

> 'port install all' and 'port install uninstalled' should also throw an
> error, unless you give it an override flag like --yes-really-all.

If "all" and "uninstalled" are already expanded into the list of  
ports by the time the "install" procedure comes around (aren't  
they?), by what criteria should it decide to issue an error? Number  
of ports? Something else?



More information about the macports-users mailing list