binary rpm repos?

[Daniel J. Luke]

On Mar 9, 2009, at 4:50 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> Yes, that's a whole 'nother problem to which someone's comment  
> recently alerted me. We not only need a way for a port to run a  
> phase after deactivation or uninstall, but also that version of the  
> portfile should be stored with the installed port so that the post- 
> deactivate or post-uninstall phase that gets used is the one that  
> was in effect at the time the port was installed, not the one that's  
> in the current version of the portfile.

And then once we get that we'll need a way to make sure we maintain  
enough compatibility to not break these and/or include some way of  
overriding them with a newer version (say if the Portfile included  
with the built port has a buggy uninstall method)...

The last time I remember seeing list traffic about this, a look over  
the port tree indicated no useful use of uninstall procs (deactivate  
didn't exist yet and the ports tree was somewhere around 1000 ports).

--
Daniel J. Luke
+========================================================+
| *---------------- dluke at geeklair.net ----------------* |
| *-------------- http://www.geeklair.net -------------* |
+========================================================+
|   Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily   |
|          reflect the opinions of my employer.          |
+========================================================+



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-users/attachments/20090309/574d153d/attachment.bin>