On Mar 4, 2015, at 10:46 AM, René J.V. Bertin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Also, you'd have to make sure that foo-B builds correctly or, if
>> it fails, activate foo-A again after it failed. I don't know whether
>> MacPorts base can do this. I doubt it does.
>
> No, I think it can't. However, if a conflict is not a build conflict the
> deactivation could be done very late, even after foo-B's archive has been
> unpacked in the temp. directory in ${prefix}/var/macports/software/foo-B . At
> that point you can be pretty sure that everything will be fine.
>
> BTW, I've already raised a suggestion recently that the same thing could be
> done while doing an upgrade (or reinstall through `port -n upgrade --force
> foo`), to reduce the time that the system spends without any active version.
Reducing the "no active version time" would be a welcome improvement.
Regards,
Bradley Giesbrecht (pixilla)
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
