Changes between Initial Version and Version 2 of Ticket #57099


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Dec 4, 2021, 9:56:18 AM (3 years ago)
Author:
RJVB (René Bertin)
Comment:

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • Ticket #57099

    • Property Type changed from request to enhancement

  • Ticket #57099 – Description

    initial v2  
    44
    55- it's not an EOL property; for instance, `port:foo` and `port:foo-devel` could both use `replaces foo-devel` and `replaces foo` respectively. This would streamline the process of switching between a port and its "devel" counterpart because the install/upgrade (or even activation) procedure for the one would first deactivate the other.
    6 - it should also streamline upgrades when a new port replaces a more than a single port.
     6- it should also streamline upgrades when a new port replaces more than a single port.
    77
    8 `port:xorg-xorgproto` is probably a good example for that second point. I had some issues when I did a (partial) upgrade using `port upgrade outdated and "xorg-*proto"`. If `xorg-xorgproto` had registerd the `replaces` list of all proto ports it replaces, those ports would all have been deactivated at once, when the first to-be-replaced proto port upgrade was being processed.
     8`port:xorg-xorgproto` is probably a good example for that second point. I had some issues when I did a (partial) upgrade using `port upgrade outdated and "xorg-*proto"`. If `xorg-xorgproto` had registered the `replaces` list of all proto ports it replaces, those ports would all have been deactivated at once, when the first to-be-replaced proto port upgrade was being processed.