uninstalling a selected port ...

Peter Danecek Peter.Danecek at bo.ingv.it
Fri Feb 28 07:18:22 PST 2014

[Sorry, I realise I send my replies off-list]

On 28 Feb 2014, at 14:44, Jason Swails <jason.swails at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 14:33 +0100, Peter Danecek wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I observe a behaviour, which I believe is due to the fact that I
>> uninstalled an selected port (see below). This seems to leave the
>> selection mechanism in an undesired state and should be handled. Now I
>> wonder which is the expected behaviour, so that I can eventually file
>> a ticket against the right component.
>> Thanks!
>> --- snip ---
>> petr% sudo port select --list postgresql
>> Available versions for postgresql:
>> 	none (active)
>> 	postgresql93
>> petr% sudo port select --set postgresql postgresql93 
>> Selecting 'postgresql93' for 'postgresql' failed: symlink: /opt/local/etc/select/postgresql/current-> postgresql93: file already exists
> Try forcing the issue.
> sudo port -f select --set postgresql postgresql93
> In my opinion, such protection is a Good Thing (TM).  There's a way to
> work around it if you know the reason behind the file collision, but I
> certainly wouldn't want a program (especially one I run as root) to go
> around clobbering existing files without me knowing it.

Well, I understand your point and it would be fine if it is decided to leave ALL untouched.
But then in expect consistent information, i.e. all should be left pointing to `postgresql92` (even if it does not exist), so at least you know the status. If I am informed that it point to `none` this should be the case. 

And I am not sure if setting the current link to `none` would harm here.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 1762 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-users/attachments/20140228/30126d17/attachment.p7s>

More information about the macports-users mailing list