port install efficiency issue

[Ben Greenfield]

On Mar 22, 2009, at 4:16 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:

> 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.

How about reverse the logic default is not to do it and a switch to do  
it?

bdg


> --
> 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.          |
> +========================================================+
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> macports-users mailing list
> macports-users at lists.macosforge.org
> http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users