On Tuesday April 26 2016 09:28:09 Brandon Allbery wrote:
>The registry's a bit of a risk, since it will be logically inconsistent if
>you aren't backing up the whole install. If I needed to worry about this,
Is that really a problem? IIRC I've already had restored files that had
"mysteriously" gone missing by (force) deactivating the corresponding port and
then activating it again. IOW, I don't have the impression that it is necessary
that the registry be consistent with the contents under ${prefix}.
You *do* have to know what ports are active of course, but I presume that
information is stored in the registry too.
OTOH it certainly wouldn't hurt to maintain a separate list. From what I have
seen it is perfectly possible to take an image (tarball) from software/, put it
in var/macports/incoming/verified, and then issue the corresponding install
command. Evidently you probably don't want to do that for a whole install,
unless there's a secret magic trick to force a port install without satisfying
dependencies first (cf. dpkg -i vs. apt-get install).
>inactive dump and then running port activate over the active list. (Come to
>think of it. this means backing up /opt/local/etc separately so config
It's already being updated, no? The cheap approach would be to restore it a 2nd
time, after doing the whole reinstall/re-activate dance.
>files don't possibly get overwritten. Yes, that would indicate Portfile
>bugs, but an emergency restore is the wrong time to discover and try to
>deal with those bugs.)
Amen to that!
Cheers,
René
_______________________________________________
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
