#51498: requested (meta) ports get uninstalled on uninstall leaves --------------------------+-------------------------------- Reporter: nick@… | Owner: macports-tickets@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: base | Version: 2.3.4 Resolution: | Keywords: Port: | --------------------------+-------------------------------- Changes (by mojca@…): * cc: devans@… (added) Comment: I'm adding David to CC (even if he is absent at the moment; he'll have a chance to follow the ticket when he's back). Ryan, thanks a lot for the very precise analysis which made me aware of additional problems I didn't know about earlier. I wonder if `p5-whatever` should perhaps print a note like "you probably want to install `p5.xx-whatever`" and would not install anything at all (python modules don't install anything for example, but I admit that I'm often confused as I'm used to run "`sudo port -v test`" without specifying port name; this doesn't work with python modules, but I don't get any warning either). I'm sure that some users would complain though (I need to check, but I believe that some developers insist in not specifying the perl version in `port:p5-whatever` for dependencies, arguing that their ports work with any given Perl version anyway). I would argue that the ports could be revbumped at some point, but revbumping wouldn't make any difference at all if users change their default perl version earlier or later. * What happens if users install `p5.22-whatever` (and `p5.22-whatever` is "selected") and then `p5.22-whatever` gets `replaced_by` `p5.24-whatever`. Will `p5.24-whatever` still be selected? * I'm generally slightly worried about the fact that the registry doesn't change if (default) variants change. I probably never revbump ports after changing default variants. I thought that worked properly out-of-the-box. -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/51498#comment:8> MacPorts <https://www.macports.org/> Ports system for OS X