Re: how exclude several ports from upgrade?

[Murray Eisenberg]

> On 11 May2021, at 8:13 PM, Ryan Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> On May 11, 2021, at 14:57, Murray Eisenberg wrote:
> 
>> On 11 May2021, at 12:59 PM, Ryan Schmidt  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On May 11, 2021, at 11:26, Murray Eisenberg wrote:
>>> 
 On 11 May2021, at 12:20 PM, Murray Eisenberg wrote:
 
> Sorry, but cannot find the relevant syntax in docs…
> 
> How do I exclude SEVERAL ports from the “port upgrade outdated and not 
> ….” command?
> 
> (sbcl has fatal build error, so other ports dependent on it cannot 
> upgrade either:
> if I try “port upgrade outdated and not sbcl” it still tries to upgrade 
> sbcl, and then fails, because at least one other port depends on it)
 
 Specifically, maxima depends on sbcl. But if I try…
 
port upgrade outdated and not \(maxima or sbcl\)
 
 ...or even...
 
port upgrade outdated and not \(maxima or sbcl\)
 
 ...it still tries to upgrade sbcl.
 
 What am I doing wrong?
>>> 
>>> I believe this should work:
>>> 
>>> sudo port upgrade outdated and not \( maxima sbcl \)
>> 
>> No: still tries first to upgrade sbcl (and fails).
>> 
>> And I copied & pasted the command directly from your email response into 
>> Terminal, just to be sure!
> 
> The syntax is correct. You should be able to verify this by running:
> 
> port echo outdated
> 
> Verify that the list contains maxima and sbcl. Now run:
> 
> port echo outdated and not \( maxima sbcl \)
> 
> Verify that the list does not contain maxima or sbcl anymore.
> 
> 
> Do you perhaps have other outdated ports that depend on sbcl? These ports 
> depend on sbcl:
> 
> QiII
> acl2
> cl-ppcre
> fricas
> maxima
> slime
> 
> Or do you have outdated ports that depend on maxima? These ports depend on 
> maxima:
> 
> imaxima
> wxMaxima
> 
> You would have to exclude those from upgrading as well.
> 
> 
> The sbcl build failure has been fixed [1] so you can sudo port sync to 
> receive the fix and should be able to upgrade those ports now.
> 
> 
> [1] 
> https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/commit/e4a200932dc0a44df212f5dbf4438daf1ca782f0
> 


I so have wxMaxima, too, so probably that’s what was at issue.

But issue now resolved with fixed sbcl.


thanks for letting me know about that!
---
Murray Eisenbergmurrayeisenb...@gmail.com
503 King Farm Blvd #101 
Rockville, MD 20850-6667Mobile (413)-427-5334

Re: how exclude several ports from upgrade?

[Ryan Schmidt]

On May 11, 2021, at 14:57, Murray Eisenberg wrote:

> On 11 May2021, at 12:59 PM, Ryan Schmidt  wrote:
>> 
>> On May 11, 2021, at 11:26, Murray Eisenberg wrote:
>> 
>>> On 11 May2021, at 12:20 PM, Murray Eisenberg wrote:
>>> 
 Sorry, but cannot find the relevant syntax in docs…
 
 How do I exclude SEVERAL ports from the “port upgrade outdated and not ….” 
 command?
 
 (sbcl has fatal build error, so other ports dependent on it cannot upgrade 
 either:
 if I try “port upgrade outdated and not sbcl” it still tries to upgrade 
 sbcl, and then fails, because at least one other port depends on it)
>>> 
>>> Specifically, maxima depends on sbcl. But if I try…
>>> 
>>> port upgrade outdated and not \(maxima or sbcl\)
>>> 
>>> ...or even...
>>> 
>>> port upgrade outdated and not \(maxima or sbcl\)
>>> 
>>> ...it still tries to upgrade sbcl.
>>> 
>>> What am I doing wrong?
>> 
>> I believe this should work:
>> 
>> sudo port upgrade outdated and not \( maxima sbcl \)
> 
> No: still tries first to upgrade sbcl (and fails).
> 
> And I copied & pasted the command directly from your email response into 
> Terminal, just to be sure!

The syntax is correct. You should be able to verify this by running:

port echo outdated

Verify that the list contains maxima and sbcl. Now run:

port echo outdated and not \( maxima sbcl \)

Verify that the list does not contain maxima or sbcl anymore.


Do you perhaps have other outdated ports that depend on sbcl? These ports 
depend on sbcl:

QiII
acl2
cl-ppcre
fricas
maxima
slime

Or do you have outdated ports that depend on maxima? These ports depend on 
maxima:

imaxima
wxMaxima

You would have to exclude those from upgrading as well.


The sbcl build failure has been fixed [1] so you can sudo port sync to receive 
the fix and should be able to upgrade those ports now.


[1] 
https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/commit/e4a200932dc0a44df212f5dbf4438daf1ca782f0

Re: how exclude several ports from upgrade?

[Ryan Schmidt]

On May 11, 2021, at 11:26, Murray Eisenberg wrote:

> On 11 May2021, at 12:20 PM, Murray Eisenberg wrote:
> 
>> Sorry, but cannot find the relevant syntax in docs…
>> 
>> How do I exclude SEVERAL ports from the “port upgrade outdated and not ….” 
>> command?
>> 
>> (sbcl has fatal build error, so other ports dependent on it cannot upgrade 
>> either:
>> if I try “port upgrade outdated and not sbcl” it still tries to upgrade 
>> sbcl, and then fails, because at least one other port depends on it)
> 
> Specifically, maxima depends on sbcl. But if I try…
> 
>   port upgrade outdated and not \(maxima or sbcl\)
> 
> ...or even...
> 
>   port upgrade outdated and not \(maxima or sbcl\)
> 
> ...it still tries to upgrade sbcl.
> 
> What am I doing wrong?



I believe this should work:

sudo port upgrade outdated and not \( maxima sbcl \)

Re: how exclude several ports from upgrade?

[Murray Eisenberg]

Specifically, maxima depends on sbcl. But if I try…

port upgrade outdated and not \(maxima or sbcl\)

...or even...

port upgrade outdated and not \(maxima or sbcl\)

...it still tries to upgrade sbcl.

What am I doing wrong?

> On 11 May2021, at 12:20 PM, Murray Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> Sorry, but cannot find the relevant syntax in docs…
> 
> How do I exclude SEVERAL ports from the “port upgrade outdated and not ….” 
> command?
> 
> (sbcl has fatal build error, so other ports dependent on it cannot upgrade 
> either:
> if I try “port upgrade outdated and not sbcl” it still tries to upgrade sbcl, 
> and then fails, because at least one other port depends on it)
> 
> ---
> Murray Eisenberg  murrayeisenb...@gmail.com 
> 
> 503 King Farm Blvd #101   
> Rockville, MD 20850-6667  Mobile (413)-427-5334
> 
> 

---
Murray Eisenbergmurrayeisenb...@gmail.com
503 King Farm Blvd #101 
Rockville, MD 20850-6667Mobile (413)-427-5334

how exclude several ports from upgrade?

[Murray Eisenberg]

Sorry, but cannot find the relevant syntax in docs…

How do I exclude SEVERAL ports from the “port upgrade outdated and not ….” 
command?

(sbcl has fatal build error, so other ports dependent on it cannot upgrade 
either:
if I try “port upgrade outdated and not sbcl” it still tries to upgrade sbcl, 
and then fails, because at least one other port depends on it)

---
Murray Eisenbergmurrayeisenb...@gmail.com
503 King Farm Blvd #101 
Rockville, MD 20850-6667Mobile (413)-427-5334

Re: license for stuff in `macports-www`

[Jean Abou Samra]

Le 11/05/2021 à 10:39, Werner LEMBERG a écrit :

Looking at

   https://github.com/macports/macports-www/

I can't find a license statement that applies to the stuff in the
repository.  So: What license is it under?  I suggest to add a small
`README.md` file that mention it...


 Werner



For context, we at LilyPond (think "LaTeX for music")
would like to advertise MacPorts as an installation
method for Mac OS in our website here:

lilypond.org/macos-x.html

Is use of the image at
https://github.com/macports/macports-www/blob/master/img/macports-avatar.png 


okay for that purpose?

From what I have read so far, I suspect it would fall
within the range of fair use. It would be simpler, however,
if the website content had an explicit license.

Thanks for your consideration,
Jean Abou Samra

license for stuff in `macports-www`

[Werner LEMBERG]

Looking at

  https://github.com/macports/macports-www/

I can't find a license statement that applies to the stuff in the
repository.  So: What license is it under?  I suggest to add a small
`README.md` file that mention it...


Werner

Re: Reclaim was not 'safe'

[Gerben Wierda via macports-users]

> On 11 May 2021, at 01:11, Ryan Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On May 9, 2021, at 17:07, Gerben Wierda wrote:
> 
>> I relied on the fact that man page/help of reclaim said it would not remove 
>> active installs. So, having read that, I assumed it was unable to damage the 
>> running setup and I assumed it would only remove everything inactive, 
>> compile stuff, etc.
>> 
>> That was a mistake I now know. Reclaim will remove active unrequested 
>> installs. But the help/man does not say so.
> 
> I'm really sorry that it uninstalled ports that you needed; that's really not 
> helpful.
> 
> The port-reclaim(1) manpage and `port help reclaim` say:
> 
> "port reclaim will find files that can be removed to reclaim disk space by 
> uninstalling inactive ports on your system as well as unnecessary unrequested 
> ports, and removing unneeded or unused installation files. The user is then 
> provided interactive options for files to remove. No files are removed 
> initially, until the user selects them from the provided list."

When I wrote “man page/help of reclaim said it would not remove active 
installs” I should have written “man page/help said of/about reclaim it would 
not remove active installs”. I did not say ‘port help reclaim’ or man 
port-reclaim’. I used the main ‘man port’. 

Where the flag is described ‘port help’ or 'man port' only says:

   reclaim
   Reclaims disk space by uninstalling inactive ports and removing 
unneeded installation files.

It doesn’t mention that it removes anything but inactive ports. This is what 
made me not care about lists being presented. Beside, tThe list was huge, most 
of it py38 or p5 somethings. So, I trusted that statement (which turned out to 
be not completely true)

My suggestion would be to adapt the main port help.


Gerben Wierda (LinkedIn )
R&A Enterprise Architecture  (main site)
Book: Chess and the Art of Enterprise Architecture 
Book: Mastering ArchiMate 

> 
> So it clearly says it will uninstall unrequested ports that are no longer 
> needed, which users are expected to have no problem with; in fact, this 
> functionality is one of the reasons why users are expected to want to run 
> reclaim: to reclaim disk space for things that are no longer needed. And it 
> says it will show you the list of everything it will uninstall before it does 
> it. So you have an opportunity to cancel before it does that. I'm not sure 
> how much more we can do to save the user from uninstalling things they didn't 
> mean to uninstall. Do you have a suggestion?
> 
> Users should definitely look through the output of `port installed 
> unrequested` and make sure that it does not contain anything you actually 
> want. If it does, use `sudo port setrequested` to tell MacPorts which ones 
> you actually do want, as Daniel said. Conversely, look through the output of 
> `port installed requested` and if anything is listed that you don't actually 
> want, use `sudo port unsetrequested` to mark it as not needed.