#50233: port upgrade --force shouldn't uninstall if no permission was given to install a missing dependency --------------------------+-------------------------------- Reporter: rjvbertin@… | Owner: macports-tickets@… Type: defect | Status: new Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: base | Version: 2.3.4 Resolution: | Keywords: Port: | --------------------------+-------------------------------- Old description:

This is a rare situation, that gave rise to a port being uninstalled in error, I consider:

Given: a port "A" that has a build dependency on port "B1" which itself conflicts with port "B2". Once built, port "A" can co-exist with either "B1" or "B2"; in fact, "A" has a path-style *runtime* dependency on an executable provided by both B1 and B2 (path:bin/bb).

Scenario (leaving out sudo, and ignoring the reasons why I proceeded this way):

```

...

port deactivate B2 port activate B1 port destroot A port deactivate B1 port activate B2 port -nv upgrade --force A ---> Computing dependencies for A.. The following dependencies will be installed: B1 Continue? [Y/n]: n ---> Deactivating A @version ---> Uninstalling A @version ---> Cleaning A ---> Removing work directory for A ---> Computing dependencies for A.. The following dependencies will be installed: B1 Continue? [Y/n]: n ---> Scanning binaries for linking errors

I consider that the process should have been aborted when I first refused
to install B1.
One could also consider that
- the depends_build dependency should be ignored since the build process
has been completed
- the depends_run dependency is satisfied by the presence of
${prefix}/bin/bb (provided by B2 at the time).

So in a sense there should be no missing dependency when doing an upgrade
.

New description: This is a rare situation, that gave rise to a port being uninstalled in error, I consider: Given: a port "A" that has a build dependency on port "B1" which itself conflicts with port "B2". Once built, port "A" can co-exist with either "B1" or "B2"; in fact, "A" has a path-style *runtime* dependency on an executable provided by both B1 and B2 (path:bin/bb). Scenario (leaving out sudo, and ignoring the reasons why I proceeded this way): {{{

port deactivate B2 port activate B1 port destroot A port deactivate B1 port activate B2 port -nv upgrade --force A ---> Computing dependencies for A.. The following dependencies will be installed: B1 Continue? [Y/n]: n ---> Deactivating A @version ---> Uninstalling A @version ---> Cleaning A ---> Removing work directory for A ---> Computing dependencies for A.. The following dependencies will be installed: B1 Continue? [Y/n]: n ---> Scanning binaries for linking errors }}}

I consider that the process should have been aborted when I first refused to install B1. One could also consider that - the depends_build dependency should be ignored since the build process has been completed - the depends_run dependency is satisfied by the presence of ${prefix}/bin/bb (provided by B2 at the time). So in a sense there should be no missing dependency when doing an upgrade . -- Comment (by ryandesign@…): I agree that if you answer "no" to the "Continue?" prompt, MacPorts should abort and not do anything. -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/50233#comment:1> MacPorts <https://www.macports.org/> Ports system for OS X