Opened 13 years ago
Closed 8 years ago
#30365 closed enhancement (wontfix)
Additional option to selfupdate required if major changes take place
| Reported by: | bgschaid@… | Owned by: | macports-tickets@… |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | Normal | Milestone: | |
| Component: | base | Version: | 2.0.0 |
| Keywords: | Cc: | ||
| Port: |
Description
My confusion in #30302 came from the fact that
a) I wasn't aware that this wasn't a "port selfupdate" like every other (update the port-list and minor updates) b) the relevant point ("- Port images are now stored as archives. Archive mode is now effectively ....") was number 23 in the release notes (if I didn't miscount)
If I understand the release notes correctly this isn't going to happen in the near future again. Nevertheless I'd suggest to modify the behaviour of self-update in such a way that if it crosses certain version-numbers a plain
port selfupdate
will fail with an error message like
"This selfupdate will upgrade your MacPorts from 1.8.3 to 2.1. This will do major changes to the way MacPorts is organized. Please check the release notes for 2.0 and make sure you understand them. Then proceed by appending the option --upgrade-2.0 to 'port selfupdate'"
That would make sure that dimwits like me don't have the excuse "I didn't read the ReleaseNotes because the upgrade hit me without warning".
Change History (3)
comment:1 Changed 13 years ago by ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)
| Type: | request → enhancement |
|---|
comment:2 Changed 13 years ago by raimue (Rainer Müller)
If you don't want to upgrade your base installation you could have used port sync. But the dports tree will usually adapt new base features quite fast.
comment:3 Changed 8 years ago by jmroot (Joshua Root)
| Resolution: | → wontfix |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → closed |
It doesn't appear that there is anything we can do here.
I don't think anything of the sort is necessary. MacPorts 2.0.0 isn't that different from MacPorts 1.9.x. One of our developers just decided we were going to call this release 2.0.0 instead of 1.10.0, and none of the other developers objected too much.
There's no way we could have known back when we released MacPorts 1.9 that MacPorts 2.0.0 was going to store installed software differently on disk and that a conversion was going to be necessary. So there's no way we would have known to build an --upgrade-2.0 option into MacPorts at that time.
Some selfupdates take longer than others. I don't think this is a problem. If the updates don't work for some reason, then that is a bug we need to fix.