<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Mihai Moldovan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ionic@macports.org" target="_blank">ionic@macports.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div id=":2a6" class="a3s" style="overflow:hidden">That would break other ports that depend upon netpbm. Worse, I think port will<br>
automatically re-activate it, if it comes to such a port.</div></blockquote></div><br>I would hope those are only upgraded *after* netpbm itself --- and using a port that has a `port upgrade` scheduled against it is a dicey proposition no matter what.<br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates</div><div><a href="mailto:allbery.b@gmail.com" target="_blank">allbery.b@gmail.com</a> <a href="mailto:ballbery@sinenomine.net" target="_blank">ballbery@sinenomine.net</a></div><div>unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad <a href="http://sinenomine.net" target="_blank">http://sinenomine.net</a></div></div></div>
</div></div>