Versions in ports

Chris Jones jonesc at
Mon Sep 14 07:53:14 PDT 2015

On 14/09/15 15:49, Artur Szostak wrote:
> Then why not protect all other upgrade operations with a -f | --force
> flag, except when upgrading everything? It seems much too easy at the
> moment to perform an upgrade operation that has a good chance of leading
> to an inconsistent state.

no it will not. A normal upgrade will first upgrade all the ports 
dependencies, as required, such that you end up with a consistent 
updated port. Only if you specifically disable this can you get into a mess.

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Brandon Allbery [allbery.b at]
> *Sent:* 14 September 2015 16:32
> *To:* Artur Szostak
> *Cc:* Macports Users ‎[macports-users at lists.macosforge
> *Subject:* Re: Versions in ports
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Artur Szostak
> <aszostak at <mailto:aszostak at>> wrote:
>     To me, it feels like the MacPorts documentation is misleading the
>     end user to believe that upgrading/downgrading individual packages
>     is a routine and safe procedure, when my experience tells me
>     otherwise. Can anyone point me to the reason behind these design
>     decisions?
> I suspect you are reading experience with something like yum or apt-get
> into a ports-based system. MacPorts gets most of its behavior from BSD
> ports/pkgsrc, and the documentation tends to assume that you are
> familiar with that.
> --
> brandon s allbery kf8nh                               sine nomine associates
> allbery.b at <mailto:allbery.b at> ballbery at
> <mailto:ballbery at>
> unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad
> _______________________________________________
> macports-users mailing list
> macports-users at

More information about the macports-users mailing list