transfer /opt/local to another machine

[j. van den hoff]

On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 12:34:00 +0200, Ryan Schmidt <ryandesign at macports.org>  
wrote:

>
> On Apr 13, 2015, at 4:27 AM, j. van den hoff wrote:
>
>>>> one marginal observation I made: after `port deactivate installed'  
>>>> when executing `port installed active' I receive the message "None of  
>>>> the specified ports are installed." which probably should read "None  
>>>> of the specified ports are active." or "No ports are active.".
>>>
>>> The message is correct. You ran the "installed" command, and as an  
>>> argument you specified the list of ports you wanted installation  
>>> details for, namely, the list of active ports. The list of active  
>>> ports is empty, so it is correct, in a way, for MacPorts to say that  
>>> none of the
>>
>> I guessed so much.
>>
>>> zero ports specified are installed. If anything, the message could be  
>>> clarified to read "No ports were specified" or maybe "The list of  
>>> specified ports is empty."
>>
>> that what be somewhat better, yes. but actually I think it would be  
>> clearer to handle these pseudo-portnames (possibly on a per case basis,  
>> if needed) in the messages. I guess that currently the message  
>> generating code only gets the list of ports to which the  
>> pseudo-portname expands?
>
> That is what I guess as well. And note that we're not just talking about  
> pseudoports (like "active", "inactive", "installed", "outdated",  
> "requested", "unrequested", "leaves", "obsolete"). We're also talking  
> about any arbitrary expression the user might specify, such as "name:php  
> and category:databases".
>
>
>> for instance, right now I _do_ have 2 inactive ports (which, by the  
>> way, magically reappeared (were downloaded etc) during the `port  
>> installed activate' run of the migration procedure (specifically these  
>> two: llvm-3.5 @3.5.1_3 and  SuiteSparse @4.2.1_3+atlas+gcc48) -- no  
>> precise idea why this happens (in fact they were there inactive in the  
>> first place so I trashed them in the initial phase of the migration.  
>> that they "reappear" seems to indicate that they are required, despite  
>> being inactive??).
>
> There is no "port installed activate"; that command doesn't make sense  
> because "activate" is not a valid pseudoport name.

sorry that was a typo: I meant `port installed active'

>
> I don't have time to analyze this right now but if MacPorts installed a  
> port for you then it was required. Or, if you were using the  
> restore_ports.tcl script in the Migration instructions, then it was  
> reinstalled for you because you had it installed before, as recorded in  
> your myports.txt file.
>
>> so, with these 2 inactive ports I get the message for `port installed  
>> inactive':
>>
>> The following ports are currently installed:
>>  llvm-3.5 @3.5.1_3
>>  SuiteSparse @4.2.1_3+atlas+gcc48
>>
>> this seems equally misleading to me as the "no ports are installed  
>> message" when there are no inactive ports at all.
>
> It is accurate, in that you asked for a list of installed ports that are  
> inactive, and that's what was printed.

yes, sure,  principally it is since it is the response to the preceding  
query. but it is not self-explanatory as a message (if, e.g., dumped to  
some logfile for later processing).

>
>
>> if the report generator would keep track of the entered pseudo-portname  
>> the message seemingly could easily be clarified to
>>
>> The following ports are currently installed and {port pseudo-portname  
>> here}.
>
> That doesn't read well for arbitrary expressions like "name:php and  
> category:databases". Better might be:
>
> The following ports matching the port selector "inactive" are installed:

yes, that would be good I believe: just augment the output in a way that  
it contains sufficient information regarding the query generating it.

>
>
>> another question regarding the manpage and `port help' output:  
>> `installed' and `(in)active' are both listed as pseudo-portnames  
>> expanding to the list of denoted ports. this sure is true for `port  
>> installed' and `port outdated', e.g. but not so for most of  the  
>> others, such as `port (in)active' which interpret these words as  
>> (unknown actions).  what is wrong: the documentation or my  
>> understanding of it?
>
> The confusion is that "installed" and "outdated" are both commands (as  
> in "port installed" and "port outdated") and pseudoports (as in "port  
> uninstall installed" and "port upgrade outdated").
>
> "active", "inactive", "requested", "unrequested", "leaves", "obsolete"  
> are only pseudoports; they are not commands.
>
> "activate", "deactivate", "install", "uninstall" are only commands; they  
> are not pseudoports.

of course. stupid me...

>
>
>


-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/