On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 7:29 AM René J.V. Bertin <rjvber...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Monday October 23 2023 01:34:03 Eric Gallager wrote: > > >I sometimes try using the `port archive` command, and one thing I'm > >wondering about it is, why does it bother calculating conflicts if it > >doesn't actually install the port? > > That's strange, in my experience conflicts are detected when moving files > into place during the activation stage. So I presume you are talking about > conflicts registered in the PortFile?
Yes, conflicts registered in the Portfile. For example: ``` $ sudo port archive arm-elf-gcc3 Warning: All compilers are either blacklisted or unavailable; defaulting to first fallback option ---> Computing dependencies for arm-elf-gcc3 Error: Can't install arm-elf-gcc3 because conflicting ports are active: arm-elf-gcc Error: Follow https://guide.macports.org/#project.tickets if you believe there is a bug. Error: Processing of port arm-elf-gcc3 failed ``` > > It's true that for those you could argue that `port install` could fall back > to `port archive` and post a note for the user. Might be too subtle for the > Joe & Jane users though, and it might not be worth the effort to implement a > switch in macports.conf for this? > > In fact, isn't there already logic in place that prevents you from activating > a port that conflicts with another? If so, implementing that switch should be > trivial... > > R.
