"`port -pf upgrade outdated` is incredibly unsafe" ??

[Jeremy Lavergne]

End users probably don't read the man pages to even know these flags exist. We're left wondering how and why you're even using them.

     -p       Despite any errors encountered, proceed to process multiple ports and com-
              mands.

     -f       force mode (ignore state file)

Do you run force mode on all your system commands and never check the result before the next one? That's an analogy here.

MacPorts upgrades dependencies by default. The routine you employ here breaks that in the worst way possible: it ignores problems and safeties with prejudice.

For what purpose are you using these flags?



On May 28, 2015, at 1:09 PM, Kurt Pfeifle wrote:

> Ok then: which one of the two switches is the unsafe one? I guess the -f? Or has the combination of the two even more damage potential?
> 
> I started to make it a habit using them, because so often the upgrade does not run through to continue with a few hundred other packages because of just one or two or three packages fail… And this requires me to restart the upgrade every so often, with a changed list of package names.
> 
> If the -f (or the combo of -pf) is indeed so terribly unsafe as you say (I do not doubt your statement, even though I do not understand the reason for it), then there should be at least one of the following:
> 
> 	• Add a warning (including the reason for it) to the port manpage.
> 	• Emit a warning on the command line, whenever this option is used.
> Currently none of the two is present. So do not wonder, if (some of the few) users who read man pages also make use of it :)
>