Trying to install a port which is already installed should mark it as requested.
% port installed requested | ag ansifilter
% port install ansifilter
---> Cleaning ansifilter
---> Scanning binaries for linking errors
---> No broken files found.
% port installed requested | ag ansifilter
%
And yet:
% port uninstall ansifilter
---> Deactivating ansifilter @2.8.1_0
---> Cleaning ansifilter
---> Uninstalling ansifilter @2.8.1_0
---> Cleaning ansifilter
% port install ansifilter
---> Fetching archive for ansifilter [...]
% port installed requested | ag ansifilter
ansifilter @2.8.1_0 (active)
%
Surely the port has been requested exactly as seriously in the case where it turned out already to have been installed as a dependency of something else. More so, since I apparently want it so much I didn't have time to notice I already had it.
This makes the same installations on different machines have context dependent results - where my lists of requested ports should match, they do not. I realize I can manually setrequested each time, but I am one of those unfortunate people who suffers terribly under mental burdens such as these.
As an aside, on the theory that setunrequested being an alias for unsetrequested sets a pretty low bar for alias urgency, perhaps we could trim port installed requested down to port requested. The ability to distinguish requested ports from incidental dependencies is in my estimation the biggest advantage of macports over homebrew, and it would be even more so with a new coat of paint. Burying it as a postfix adjective doesn't show it off to best advantage. Especially since they probably found it by typing port list requested and being instructed they should have typed a different command, while it slooooooowly generates approximately the same output.
Change History (6)
Keywords: |
installed requested setrequested removed
|
Version: |
2.4.1
|
Owner: |
set to jmroot
|
Resolution: |
→ fixed
|
Status: |
new →
closed
|
Milestone: |
→ MacPorts Future
|
Milestone: |
MacPorts Future →
MacPorts 2.9.0
|
Replying to paulp:
I could agree with that.
This deserves its own ticket, so I'll reply there: #55089