On Dec 7, 2007, at 11:27, Joe Davison wrote:
Yesterday, on my other machine, I did "port upgrade all" when I should have done "port upgrade installed".
Hmm.
Today I stopped by the machine (867 MHz G4, OS 10.4.11) and it was still chugging along... Luckily I'd added "-v" and " | tee logfile" so a "grep -i fetching logifile" showed it was busily upgrading packages I'd never installed (or don't remember installing). I killed it because I do want to be able to use the machine occasionally...
Is the behavior of "upgrade all" reasonable? I do recognize that one can claim that an uninstalled package is upgraded by installing it, but that seems a stretch. Offhand, I'd think "upgrade" would skip packages that weren't installed.
I would also think that "upgrade" should skip ports that are not installed. But that doesn't really appear to be the case. I hadn't noticed before, but: $ port installed apache None of the specified ports are installed. $ sudo port upgrade apache Password: ---> Fetching apache ---> Attempting to fetch apache_1.3.37.tar.gz from http:// archive.apache.org/dist/httpd/ ^C $ I think "upgrade" should issue an error that the port is not installed, recommending the user "install" it instead.
That might better be done by a simple sanity check on the command line args -- are there really people who could reasonably mean to install every package in every tree?
No, it's never reasonable to install all ports. It would take forever, and besides, you can't install all ports, since some are incompatible with one another.