port install efficiency issue

[Daniel J. Luke]

On Mar 22, 2009, at 9:34 AM, Rainer Müller wrote:
> Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>> I think port not only pays attention to epoch/version/revision but
>>> also the
>>> timestamp of Portfile; when Portfile is newer than the install,
>>> even when
>>> the versioning says it's already installed, it'll run again.
>>
>> I would not have expected that.
>>
>> If a rebuild is needed, the maintainer needs to increase the
>> revision, version, or epoch.
>
> I reported this problem earlier:
> http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2008-February/004563.html
>
> If nobody can think of a valid use for this check we should just  
> drop it.


It is somewhat useful when one is developing a new port (since you  
don't have to remember to clean before you rebuild after changing the  
Portfile), and there's the -o flag one can use to change the behavior.

I don't have a problem with removing the feature, though.
--
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/20090322/1583358f/attachment.bin>