[MacPorts] #14906: port requires too many flags for simple
operations
MacPorts
trac at macosforge.org
Thu Apr 3 00:54:21 PDT 2008
#14906: port requires too many flags for simple operations
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Reporter: paulbeard at gmail.com | Owner: macports-tickets at lists.macosforge.org
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: Not set | Milestone: MacPorts base enhancements
Component: base | Version: 1.7.0
Resolution: | Keywords:
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Comment (by afb at macports.org):
Replying to [ticket:14906]:
> Ideally, this would be filed against a 2.0 release not the trunk or the
next release.
>
> -f force mode (ignore state file)
>
> why is -f (force) needed for upgrades of installed ports? Is there a
reason that upgrade should not do just that? And why not put in a .conf
file in that case? The idea of forcing something just seems wrong to new
users, in many cases.
See #12989 (and #7361). It shouldn't be needed...
> -c autoclean mode (execute clean after install)
>
> I would vote for putting "clean" in a conf file, since it seems unlikely
a user would change their mind per port or upgrade cycle. That there is a
-k, the opposite command, suggests one should be the default.
It is already available:
{{{
# Set whether to automatically execute "clean" after "install" of ports
portautoclean yes
}}}
> -n don't follow dependencies in upgrade (only for upgrading)
>
> Likewise, why not have this be the default?
It says "The upgrade target works on a port and its dependencies.",
so it's a design decision.
The flags are workarounds to dependendency engine bugs,
so most likely won't be needed if/when those are fixed...
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.macosforge.org/projects/macports/ticket/14906#comment:1>
MacPorts </projects/macports>
Ports system for Mac OS
More information about the macports-tickets
mailing list