On 2010-5-27 02:27 , Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > On May 26, 2010, at 11:11, Rainer Müller wrote: > >> with MacPorts 1.9 we will begin to store Portfiles into the registry to >> run activate/deactivate hooks later. For this, we cannot use the include >> statement anymore as sourced files are not being stored in the registry >> and therefore would not be available later. >> >> As far as I was able to determine I was the only one maintaining ports >> which use include which had been added before I took maintainership. Now >> I already removed the include statements from vim, vim-app and bash. >> >> Any objections to completely removing include from port1.0? > > Sounds like a good idea to me.
Well, the other option would be to make it work by also storing the other required files. Maybe even portgroups. I already started wondering if it would be better if the portfile field in the registry was just a path and we kept the actual file somewhere under the registry dir. >> PS: On a related note, from 1.9 on the versions in PortSystem and >> PortGroup need to declare a stable interface or otherwise we will have a >> similar problem. > > Hm, yeah, we haven't been incrementing that version number at all. What kinds > of changes would necessitate increasing that version number? Any changes > we've already done in the past for example? Anything that removes a proc or variable or significantly alters its semantics. We try not to do that. - Josh _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev