-p considered problematic (was Re: how to proceed past errors?)

[Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia]

On Jul 31, 2012, at 7:55 AM, Arno Hautala <arno at alum.wpi.edu> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia
> <jeremyhu at macports.org> wrote:
>> 
>> On Jul 26, 2012, at 09:41, "Daniel J. Luke" <dluke at geeklair.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> From the man page:
>>> 
>>>    -p       Despite any errors encountered, proceed to process multiple
>>>             ports and commands.
>> 
>> That is *very* problematic.  Don't do it unless you really, really, really know what it implies.
> 
> Why is this considered problematic? My understanding is that this
> won't allow a port to be installed if it's dependencies fail, but will
> continue to build as many requested ports as is possible.
> 
> ie: port-a depends on port-b, port-c, and port-d
> 
>> port install port-a
> 
> would install port -b, port-c fails, and port stops
> 
>> port -p install port-a
> 
> would install port-b, port-c fails, install port-d, doesn't install
> port-a because deps aren't satisfied.
> 
> I've been using this flag in an automated process for quite some time.
> What problems should I be aware of with using this switch?


IIRC, the OP was talking about upgrade, not install.  So in your case, you would have:

port -p upgrade upgrade port-a 

This is problematic because port-a will be upgraded even through port-d failed.  If port-a was rev-bumped specifically because of port-d to force a rebuild after the port-d install, this will thwart that.  Luckily, rev-upgrade now exists to work around such issues these days, but I still do not recommended '-p upgrade'

--Jeremy