Opened 17 years ago
Closed 16 years ago
#14906 closed enhancement (fixed)
port requires too many flags for simple operations
| Reported by: | paulbeard@… | Owned by: | macports-tickets@… |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | Not set | Milestone: | MacPorts 1.7.0 |
| Component: | base | Version: | 1.7.0 |
| Keywords: | Cc: | ||
| Port: |
Description
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.
-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.
-n don't follow dependencies in upgrade (only for upgrading)
Likewise, why not have this be the default?
Feel free to create a new version to apply this to.
Change History (2)
comment:1 Changed 17 years ago by afb@…
comment:2 Changed 16 years ago by jmroot (Joshua Root)
| Milestone: | MacPorts Future → MacPorts 1.7.0 |
|---|---|
| Resolution: | → fixed |
| Status: | new → closed |
You don't need -f in normal usage as of 1.7.0, and as Anders pointed out, the rest of this appears invalid.
Replying to 14906:
See #12989 (and #7361). It shouldn't be needed...
It is already available:
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...